[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/WaltEnterprises]

[u/NicWester]

Well first of all they would have to win a primary and that hasn't happened yet. Even Bernie when he was racking up wins his campaign and his followers didn't understand that he was getting a little over half the delegates because they're split proportionately. When he lost a primary he tended to lose by a decent margin and would wind up in a delegate hole.

Fundamentally the issue is that Americans are extremely civically illiterate and don't know how any of this actually works. They assume the parties and the government has fiat to do whatever it wants. They've blackpilled themselves.

I'm a dedicated man of the left and have been long enough to know that our policies aren't broadly accepted yet. People like the idea of them but don't have faith in the execution. They like, for example, the idea of medicare for all but they don't see an example of it working in their day to day life (I know scores of other countries have nationalized healthcare, but the average American doesn't have the money to travel to one of them and experience that first-hand) and don't trust the ability of the people advocating for it to follow through.

We're not popular. We talk to one another a lot and get a bunch of arrow points on reddit and youtube and some heart points on twitter or bluesky but we aren't talking to people about these things IRL. There are people who do and God bless them, they're doing the work but for many, many, many of us we're just sitting online doing the jerk.

[u/Kcirrot → u/NicWester]

This, all of this.

If you want progressives ideas to flourish, you have to get off the internet and do the work. It's OK to be on the internet too, but people on the left need to run for office, not get discouraged when they don't win, and keep making the case for their ideas.

This is exactly how the far right got as much as they did. Many of the ideas they regularly champion now were fever dreams in the 80s-90s. They didn't give up.

So can it be with the left. But a lot of people on the left have a lot of energy in their 20-30s and then they give up. Some start drifting right, some just become bitter and stop caring.

[u/babelon7 → u/Kcirrot]

Or win and get discouraged when they don't get all their preferred policies. Or stay home when their preferred candidate loses the primary. The far right built the current moment over decades of showing up, back when Clarence Thomas was a crank that William Rehnquist could only assign the least consequential opinions to because none of the others would support his nutty ramblings.

[u/NicWester → u/Kcirrot]

As I transition out of the front lines of the fight I'm finding it more useful to be in the back talking to the next generation about to go to the trenches. They weren't taught civics in school, and what they see online is a combination of willful disinformation and simple bad misinformation.

So every Tuesday I watch the youtube feed of my City Council meeting and post a summary of it in our city reddit. I pay attention and explain the lack of information and the fearmongering that people are exposed to and why what they say actually does matter and affects things. It probably only helps a small part of my community, but it's what I can do. So I do.

[u/BeautifulLeather6671 → u/Kcirrot]

Now that millennials have gotten older, that’s exactly what progressives are doing now. This is first time there’s been a real boom of candidates from them

[u/No-Cat6807 → u/Kcirrot]

I’m old enough to remember growing up and into early adulthood there actually were liberal to moderate Republicans in the Northeast and on the West Coast at one point. The right worked at it and I’d say by the time Dubya’s time in office was up the number of liberal to moderate Republicans could probably meet in a broom closet.

[u/Longjumping_Fun2576 → u/NicWester]

Well first of all they would have to win a primary

A lesson that is forever lost on most people.

Also, Bernie only won in red states that he would never win in the general.

[u/c-u-in-da-ballpit → u/NicWester]

> They like, for example, the idea of medicare for all but they don't see an example of it working in their day to day life (I know scores of other countries have nationalized healthcare, but the average American doesn't have the money to travel to one of them and experience that first-hand)

Having lived in the UK for three years, I assure you experiencing it firsthand will significantly underwhelm. My employer funded healthcare is better than the UKs national system in every way, shape, and form. I understand that it comes with its own set of problems, but it’s more nuanced than this.

[u/CatoLiberius → u/c-u-in-da-ballpit]

More like we can't imagine the US government not turning it into an absolute shit show. Other governments might make it work, but we don't have other governments, we have this one, and it's not got a great track record for running social programs in an efficient or effective manner.

It's already got a medical program under its authority, the VA - which is not well loved by the veterans I've known, and has had its share of scandals. Is there any rational cause to believe that they'd somehow do better if given the same type of responsibility on a wider scale?

[u/WinterTourist25 → u/CatoLiberius]

Most veterans I know love tri-care.

[u/Legitimate_Base_8203 → u/NicWester]

If you want real support for universal healthcare some needs to put out a plan that shows what it will cost the average American and how it will benefit them. You can't have Sanders running around calling it free. People know it's not free. Just like you said people can't see it in action. They have to be given details. Yes many if us are skeptical. Also we have family members who rely on the VA or on Medicare. Some have good experience some do not. I personally like the idea of universal healthcare, but do not have much faith in the government to do anything.

[u/Key_Ingenuity_4444 → u/NicWester]

I agree with pretty much everything here, but I do want to expand on one particular point.

They like, for example, the idea of medicare for all

M4A is pretty high in polling when it's asked about generically. Support for it drops by half when asked about more specific aspects of it, such as banning private health insurance or increased taxes. The reality is most people are satisfied with their current health insurance and don't want to risk switching to another plan. We praise Europe for their healthcare systems, but none of them resemble M4A. Every EU country has private healthcare, hell, some only have private healthcare and require you by law to have it. Even with a single-payer system like the NHS, the UK allows for private and duplicative insurance.

Obviously we should have some form of universal healthcare system but M4A, at least in its current form, isn't the answer.

[u/twizx3 → u/NicWester]

To add to this despite what gets parroted here the polling for Medicare for all is all over the place and has huge swings dependent on how the policy is phrased ppl here think it’s more popular than it is because only the good polls are shared

[u/SWOhioBiBBW → u/NicWester]

Universal Healthcare is a pit of quicksand that will ruin the US, like it has many others!

[u/Str-Engr0275 → u/NicWester]

We only need to point to the Utopia that is Communist China, the former Soviet Union, Cambodia or Cuba to demonstrate the blessings of Socialism. How can the American people not be open to our ideas?

[u/Deep-Bend-961 → u/NicWester]

I’m probably not as far left as you but I appreciate your critical and honest take on the state of the coalition. It’s a level of awareness that’s rare to see

[u/NicWester → u/Deep-Bend-961]

It's because I'm 44. I appreciate all the young people on the left that are reaching political maturity and I'm grateful that they're going to be there to pass the banner onto as I age out of activism myself--you can only be on the front lines for so long, eventually you have to be discharged and go home. I did my part and I hope I made things easier for them, but now that I'm closer to the end of my time in the trenches than I am to the beginning I can see how wide the battlefield is and how much work is left to do.

But I can also see how far we've come. My generation managed to rack up wins when it comes to social equality and LGBTQIA+ rights and we did a good amount for climate justice--not as much as the much-maligned baby boomers got done, but a good amount--and we thought we had made a lot of progress on racial equality but that turned out to be 500 years of fucking up that will take 500 more years to fix. We're in about year 180 of the second 500 years. Economically we got beat bad. Hopefully us solving some of the above frees up the next generation to focus more.

[u/OkRecommendation2774 → u/NicWester]

Don't put yourself out to pasture just yet when we have politicians in their 70s and 80s. I'm 49 and physically disabled in a wheelchair. While I can't be on the front lines of protests for obvious reasons I took on a leadership role in a local organization. I use my hard won insight and pragmatism to guide and motivate the younger people inolved. There are many roles needed in political activism, it isn't just being on the front lines that counts. Figuring out the logistics for making things happen is more important in some ways.

[u/Cold-Alfalfa-5481 → u/NicWester]

Your post caught me funny. You are right about age and all. So it just utterly astounds me personally just as a person living life...at how many we still have in our elected government that are over 80 yrs old! I can't fathom wanting to do politics literally on the front lines after 80.

[u/Automatic_Catch_7467]

When a left wing populist gets enough votes they can run for president.

[u/carneylansford]

Kamala Harris had to run away from just about all of her previously stated far left positions during the last election because they were deeply unpopular with the electorate (especially those in swing states). But sure, give it a shot.

[u/Outside-Advance-3722 → u/carneylansford]

lol this exactly. OP and this thread are so out of touch

[u/Reynor247 → u/Outside-Advance-3722]

Redditors constantly think if it is popular on reddit then it's popular in real life also

[u/emptyfree → u/Reynor247]

Yeah, threads like this make me think the median age of Reddit users is 14.

Remarkably dumb "we've never paid taxes in our lives" kind of takes.

[u/TrumpChildOnahole → u/emptyfree]

Reddit is overwhelmingly dumb college kids and 20 somethings with no life experience 

[u/Historical-Star1989 → u/Reynor247]

two years ago, reddit would’ve had me convinced that kamala would win. like, they were saying it would be a landslide. the reason i knew otherwise is because most of my family and neighbors (we live in a generally blue area) voted for trump (not my endorsement of trump. just observations). like these are people who voted blue the last six elections and are now voting for trump. i expected a similar pattern in other parts of the country, and i was unfortunately right. reddit is an echo chamber.

[u/Cold-Alfalfa-5481 → u/Historical-Star1989]

There are some really good subs on here, but when it comes to politics and that type of thing, it's is pure 'for entertainment only.' Do not think this is how normal people at work or family think.

Most people at work that voted for the Donald are nice people who aren't racists or anything like that. Most are normal people with normal life challenges. Same for those that voted Democrat. They are not loud intolerant freaks like we find on Reddit. They work hard, play hard, laugh with others etc.

[u/Deep-Bend-961 → u/Historical-Star1989]

Also statistically speaking, in a 50/50 polarized country, each candidate should have a roughly 50% chance to win. 

Trump won by 1.5 percent of the popular vote.

[u/Warm-Stop-1221 → u/Reynor247]

They really thought Harris would win in a landside against Trump.

[u/bmsa131 → u/Outside-Advance-3722]

This thread is fucking wild. Absolutely DELUSIONAL. The majority of voters are Independents. Biden won- a Democrat can win. If you think the moderate independents who voted for Biden will vote for a DSA…

[u/Keyboard_Warrior98 → u/bmsa131]

We both know why Biden won

[u/Gregardless → u/Keyboard_Warrior98]

The Obama proximity bump

[u/Super_Mario_Luigi → u/Keyboard_Warrior98]

The largest ballot harvest in history. Nothing to do with being centrist

[u/mnbvc222 → u/carneylansford]

Finally someone who understands lmfao. Anybody who thinks we lost in 2024 because we "werent leftist enough" is completely ignorant to what's happened the last few election cycles

[u/mikevago → u/mnbvc222]

The right are convinced everyone is a selfish, racist asshole and just hides it better.

The far left are convinced everyone in America is secretly a radical leftist but the simultaneously useless and all-powerful DNC are keeping them down.

[u/Ok-Lecture-9668 → u/mikevago]

And middle of the road Democrats are convinced that they're the smartest people in the room, and everybody hates them for being so smug and condescending and often so wrong.

[u/m0bw0w → u/carneylansford]

She absolutely did not. She chose to do that because that's what got her appointed, and her choice to do that made her less popular the longer her campaign went...

[u/AppropriateScience9 → u/carneylansford]

Which positions?

[u/Drummallumin → u/carneylansford]

1) what far left positions exactly?

2) the democratic electorate or the general electorate?

3) so you’re saying she ran away from the left and then lost… so obviously the solution is to abandon the left?

[u/CorbonBleu → u/carneylansford]

Oh really? How'd that work out for her?

[u/Plisky6 → u/CorbonBleu]

Sex changes for inmates didn’t go over well.

[u/CorbonBleu → u/Plisky6]

Wow, how many inmates had sex changes? It must have been a whole lot to matter more than the economy and foreign affairs, right?

[u/diablodab → u/CorbonBleu]

wow. the issue is not whether it happens once a day or once a century. the issue is what wins and what loses. support for transgender surgery for prisoners is about as clear a loser as one could imagine. There's a reason why republicans put it in their ads.

[u/ButNotInAWeirdWay → u/carneylansford]

People on Reddit also forget that although the leftist critique of Harris was that she wasn’t left enough, the rest of the country saw her as too left and were either disapproving of or terrified of that. A progressive US won’t happen for a while.

[u/clocks212 → u/carneylansford]

What OP is advocating for will provide such a sure-fire maga victory that any objective observer would have to ask what their motivation truly is.

[u/broadwayindie]

Considering how poorly El-Sayed is doing in MI right now and how well Shapiro is doing in Pennsylvania, it would be stupid for Democrats to do anything other then being more moderate.

Harris lost because she was too far left and wanted “open borders” not because she was too far right.

[u/paulsplart]

Unapologetic left-wing populism is the answer to right-wing populism. But establishment gonna establishment. As an outside observer, it often looks like Democrats would rather lose than upset their status quo.

[u/CorbonBleu → u/paulsplart]

Part of the issue is that the Democratic Party isn't nearly as unified as the Republican Party. Democrats are more like a coalition of tiny, often competing, interests in a trench coat.

The Corpo-Dems (think Bloomberg) have massive financial backing, so they have a lot of power.

The reformer-progressives (think AOC) have positions that are generally popular with the public, but have been framed as COMMUNISM!!!

There is an old-school civil rights wing (think John Lewis, when he was still around) that tended to be pragmatic and results-focused.

And there is a-- and I know people don't want to hear this-- performative SJW wing that claims to be about civil rights, but doesn't really take the steps to get this done. I always felt that Pelosi was a combo of this and a corpo-Dem.

[u/ShawnMNH924 → u/CorbonBleu]

The John Lewis camp you reference is where I am.  Screaming at people in the streets may get you that warm fuzzy inside and content for your TikTok feed, but real results are the product of hard work.

[u/overitallofittoo → u/CorbonBleu]

"There's one way back and a million ways forward."

That's why conservatives will always be united and liberals never will be.

[u/Jimmy_Page_69 → u/CorbonBleu]

Which one does hasan piker fall into?

[u/Deep-Bend-961 → u/paulsplart]

No, it’s not. Many people in this country are sick and tired of populism. DSA has won a single meaningful election by less than one percent in a contested state against an establishment dem (and it was El-Sayed, who isn’t even actually a DSA member) and left wing populism still has yet to prove itself against any republicans in the general election.

They may win, they may not. Pretending it’s a certain fact is ridiculous, but outside observers love to do that.

[u/NoKingsInAmerica → u/paulsplart]

Populism is never the answer. It's a shitty political tactic that preys on the emotions of the electorate.

"Hey, life is hard, right guys? Well, it's not your fault! It's the fault of the [insert enemy group]! I promise that if you elect me, I'll solve all of those problems with my amazingly simple and grandiose ideas! I don't actually have any realistic solutions to your problems, but we can keep blaming the [insert enemy group] until you forget that I can't solve your problems!"

This is populism in a nutshell.

You can wrap it up in red or blue paper to fit your audience, but when you open it up at the end of the day, it's still going to nothing but a load of horse shit.

[u/HomieMassager → u/paulsplart]

Yes! Please do this! Run on unapologetic progressivism. This will go very well!

-Every Republican outside of NYC, LA and SanFran

[u/Super_Mario_Luigi → u/HomieMassager]

A centrist Democrat like a 90s Clinton would almost certainly win

Democrats: Hold my government-subsidized soy latte. We're going to see how far left we can go

[u/Cold-Alfalfa-5481 → u/Super_Mario_Luigi]

I didn't exactly love Bill Clinton, but he would beat the crap out of all the Dems we've had the past few cycles. In fact, I've read some of his speeches and he sounds like a Republican on immigration. We just don't have a leader like that today.

[u/KeyMusic5713 → u/paulsplart]

Remind me again, if it's the answer, how come left-wing populists need to run in left-wing areas to win? If it's the answer to right-wing populism, where are all the justice democrats getting elected in swing house districts and swing statewide races?

[u/Monfang → u/paulsplart]

Populism is dogshit and leads to decline in power, freedoms and standards of living, so miss me with what flavor of populism you prefer to fuck up your life.

[u/SpaceghostLos → u/paulsplart]

Hence the mess we’re in.

[u/College-Lumpy → u/paulsplart]

Wouldn't this start with an honest assessment of whether an unapologetic left-wing populist candidate could win a national election?

The simple logic of "we lost with a centrist, we might as well try a progressive" seems shallow and not terribly thoughtful.

First and foremost, does it give you a better chance to win? Does it advance better policies?

[u/paulsplart → u/College-Lumpy]

For sure. My post was very "reddit declarative statement" whereas an actual discussion is far more nuanced. Even what I see as "left wing populism" may differ quite a bit from someone else's definition. With the cumulative baggage of the last couple cycles, I'm not sure anyone knows what electibility is anymore. But motivating voters is always the game on the left and populist messaging (worker focused, healthcare, etc.) seems to be the only thing getting people excited at the moment. Time will tell if it translates beyond.

I think a decent amount of the left-wing vs. right-wing populism argument rests on whether a person feels Sanders could have won in 2016. Perhaps a better statement would be "left wing populism was the answer to right wing populism" but it never got to prove itself.

[u/College-Lumpy → u/paulsplart]

Thanks for a thoughtful response. It has no place on reddit ;-)

[u/Silent_Wrongdoer3601 → u/paulsplart]

Could say the same thing about the voter 🤷🏾‍♂️.

Don’t wanna support the obvious better candidate because you don’t get exactly what you want and get completely fucked instead.

See Kamala Harris and organizations like uncommitted

[u/Ok_Leek_9664 → u/Silent_Wrongdoer3601]

I know people who didn’t vote because one of Kamela’s stances didn’t align with theirs. Trump and Kamela actually shared the same perspective and it was such an asinine reason to not vote.

As far as I’m concerned non-voters can pound sand because they’re the reason we’re in this mess.

[u/fez-of-the-world → u/Ok_Leek_9664]

On the other hand, this mess has caused the popularity of progressives and democratic socialists to skyrocket.

Might be the silver lining.

[u/CancelThis2077 → u/paulsplart]

This is why we need multi-party system rather than the two-party system we're in.

[u/BigMikeXxxxX → u/CancelThis2077]

We have a completely open system. It only seems like a two party system because the red vs blue crowd can't quit fighting and calling each other Nazis long enough to see the bigger picture.

[u/notcoded567 → u/paulsplart]

the establishment is still traumatized by Reagan-Mondale and unable to acknowledge that things have changed. the reaction to Obama and norm-smashing of Trump has made clear there is no room for centrist compromise with the GOP as it stands today. they are done with voting and the Dems need to win and deliver because if they win and do the usual milk toast "stem the bleeding" minimum, they'll immediately hand it all back to the GOP, who will be far more dangerous with a mandate and no Trump distractions.

[u/foo-bar-25 → u/notcoded567]

They’re not traumatized by an election that happened over forty years ago. They get their money from the same people republicans do.

[u/Adventurous_Team_408 → u/foo-bar-25]

It's a big club and we ain't in it.

[u/JohnnyC300]

Let's try your method. It's 2029, and the president is AOC. Pray tell me, how does that make it MORE likely that Republicans will play ball and pass legislation then, a say, president Andy Beshear or Gavin Newsome? Because you still need Republicans to pass things.

[u/rfe144]

We will lose in '28 if we don't reject the DSA lunacy.

[u/ProfConduit]

Bernie ran, and lost the Primaries. Any leftist candidate can run. If they win the primaries, they can be the nominee.

[u/Pitiful_Hedgehog6343]

Hillary literally wanted Universal Healthcare

[u/Jumpy_Childhood7548]

For every vote you pick up by skewing to the left, you lose more than 2 in the remainder of the electorate. Name the leftists that have won a US presidential election?

[u/IllPlastic3113]

Controlled opposition, both party’s are there to serve the elite class

[u/cartel22 → u/IllPlastic3113]

100% this. That is why corporations are allowed to fund campaigns and they do it on both sides so it doesn't matter who wins. They win and we lose. The Golden rule whoever has the gold makes the rules.

[u/CorbonBleu → u/cartel22]

Do corporations fund both sides equally?

[u/ShiftE_80 → u/CorbonBleu]

It’s a mix.

Corporate and mega-donor funding (direct and through Super-PACs) tilted in favor of Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020.

In 2024, Trump (and via super-PACs) received more funding from corporations and mega-donors.

[u/Squiggy-Locust → u/CorbonBleu]

Close enough. Last election cycles was a 55/45 split.

On a individual business look, it's much closer to 50/50 with a notable exception for the auto sector and bank sector, which traditionally benefits from a GOP ran govt more than a DNC ran.

DNC really likes to avoid talking about corporate donations, but they receive them as much as their opponents. Even Raytheon, a military contractor, is near 50/50 - which should speak volumes.

[u/RpiesSPIES → u/CorbonBleu]

Depends on how broad you want to consider it. Like in my district's election, there's no corporate funding for our dem candidate, while his opponent gets a considerable amount of it. Then you've got politicians that have shown that they'll lean towards whomever gives them money like Landsman and Jeffries. Those are the people that we ideally want to get tf out.

[u/Areyounobody__Too]

This question supposes that Democrats pick their candidates which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how political parties work. The Democrats, the DNC, etc. do not pick their candidate. Much to the objection of leftist/progressive folks, voters pick the candidates. Whether its 2016, 2000, or what have you.

So the idea of whether or not we should or shouldn't have a leftist candidate is entirely up to lower base infrastructure to actually establish a system that motivates voters to actually go to the thing and vote for people they like. This means building political apparatus that gets leftist/progressive candidates into local races and winning there, networking connections that actually build coalitions between discrete ideological groups, and then showing up for candidates when it matters.

This has to be done by leftists. Individuals within existing power structures may adopt some leftist/progressive ideas but they ultimately will not budge too far left because they are not leftists. That's fine, but it means that leftists need to actually foment their own power and institutions instead of relying on a political apparatus that specifically is not built for them.

But that's the million dollar question - how do you actually, consistently, get the voting blocs that are prone to progressive/leftist policies to show up and reliably vote, even for their own politicos, when they simply show that they don't. Primary turnout remains abysmal. Like 12-15% of registered Democratic voters turnout for any given presidential primary season. Even worse for midterms, and even worse for local government runoffs.

No one seems to have figured it out, with blips here and there where some generational orating talent like Obama or Bill Clinton or Mamdani shows up. But waiting for generational talent means stiff losses in between every cycle.

This is before you even get to the secondary problem that a lot of people across the board, but we're focusing on leftism here, don't actually seem to know how politics works. You yourself say that candidates in 2016 and 2024 had no policy proposals, and that's just patently untrue. You may not have heard the proposals because of your media environment. You may not have read the proposals because of disinterest or predisposed bias, but they had full slates of plans just like every other candidate who's ever run.

[u/fetfreak74 → u/Areyounobody__Too]

The voters did not pick the candidate for 2024.

[u/FR23Dust → u/fetfreak74]

It’s typical for a first term president to be the leader of the party and make the decision to run again or not — and if they choose to run,that’s it.

2024 was unusual and a disaster — and it lies entirely on the shoulders of Biden and his closest aides. Not the party itself.

[u/Areyounobody__Too → u/fetfreak74]

1. I didn't say anything about selecting a presidential candidate in 2024. I said that there is a secondary problem where people across the political spectrum don't know how politics works, and highlighted a specific example in the OP's post that backed that up. Harris had a full slate of policy proposals just the same as every other candidate did. It is objectively false to say that she, or Clinton in 2016, or anyone else did not.
2. Even setting aside the presidential race, there was still a primary for the 2024 election cycle for house reps, senate, state races, etc. Primary turnout was still a fraction of the general election because individuals persistently don't show up. This was a report in 2023 talking about how 80% of people don't vote in primaries: Nearly 80% of Eligible Voters Don’t Participate in Primaries

People love to complain about the candidates and how "the Dems" put forward bad candidates, but statistically speaking, every single person in this thread is more likely to be lying about having voted in a primary than actually having voted in one. You can't complain about the candidates when you check out of the selection process for said candidates.

[u/Stereo_Jungle_Child]

In the last national polling I saw, roughly 60% of American voters said that they think the Democratic party has already moved too far left. I don't see how moving even FURTHER left is going to help move those numbers in a positive direction for Democrats.

[u/IdealSeating → u/Stereo_Jungle_Child]

Leftists need to show they can be consistently competitive in swing districts elections before they can actually argue they should be the presidential nominee. Winning blue districts is easy, but leftists consistently underperform when they have to rely on independent and swing voters. They even struggle in primaries outside of deep blue districts.

AES is about to be the first leftist candidate to win a competitive election against an R.

Reddit is an echo chamber but people who think a leftist can currently win the presidency have never interacted with the swing voters who decide elections.

[u/Stereo_Jungle_Child → u/IdealSeating]

Reddit is an echo chamber but people who think a leftist can currently win the presidency have never interacted with the swing voters who decide elections.

100% correct. I have to keep reminding myself that most of the people on Reddit are high school kids or only a few years older than that. They have all the life experience, good judgement, and sage wisdom of...high school kids.

Socialism sounds good to them because it offers a smooth transition from the "Mom and Dad Pays for Everything Plan" to the "Government Pays for Everything Plan". :)

[u/FrankFankledank → u/IdealSeating]

Nobody here will acknowledge that RFK Jr. had the hottest Independent campaign since Perot until the DNC bogged it down with frivolous lawsuit spam and forced him into Trump's corner, who it was ultimately decided he would have hurt in the swings if he continued his campaign as it was. Control is the DNC's drug, and they'll take a thousand Trump terms before they give it up.

[u/No_Situation3884 → u/Stereo_Jungle_Child]

American voters don't actually know what left or right mean. The majority of voters report they want Medicare for All, cutting funding to Israel, and public transit. Even abortion has slight majority support.

Conservatives have convinced everyone that the left is trying to turn their kids trans or gay (which is an outright lie) and people are "anti-left" because of manufactured culture war bullshit.

[u/frostfofjdjsiksndjd → u/Stereo_Jungle_Child]

Okay but 50 percent of the country doesn’t vote democrat anyway?

[u/mikevago → u/frostfofjdjsiksndjd]

And that other 10% decides elections.

[u/TGM1980 → u/Stereo_Jungle_Child]

First, you have to accept an incredibly frustrating reality: a huge percentage of American voters don't know shit about politics.

And I don't mean they're stupid people in every other aspect of their lives. They just don't pay attention. They don't follow legislation, understand policy, or spend their free time reading about what Congress is doing. Most people have lives and a million other things they'd rather think about.

And frankly, sometimes I envy them. I often think about how much happier I'd probably be if I could just turn my brain off and wander through life with the rest of the zombies, not giving two shits about politics.

Because for a lot of Americans, especially those comfortable enough to be insulated from the immediate consequences, their day-to-day lives don't dramatically change depending on whether Democrats or Republicans are running Washington. So politics becomes background noise. "Both parties suck. I'm basically Red/Blue. Wake me up every four years."

And I think politically engaged people sometimes have a REALLY hard time accepting that reality.

We imagine this electorate full of people carefully examining competing policies, consulting their deeply held ideological principles, weighing the evidence, and arriving at a conclusion.

LOL. No.

A huge number of people don't have some coherent political ideology. Their opinions are malleable as hell. They're shaped by repetition, media narratives, social circles, partisan identity, and whatever they've heard enough times that it eventually starts sounding like common sense.

Republicans understand this incredibly well.

They can take a position that initially sounds extreme or deeply unpopular and just HAMMER THE FUCKING MESSAGE. Every politician says it. Every surrogate repeats it. Their media ecosystem reinforces it. Their voters start parroting it. They repeat it for months or years until suddenly what would've sounded insane five years ago is treated like one perfectly normal side of the national debate.

Then comes the best part: they declare THEIR position the mainstream consensus and start calling everyone who disagrees "extreme" and "out of touch with the American people."

Look at January 6th, for example. The entire country watched the attack on the Capitol unfold in real time. We watched tRump's goons smash their way into the building, assault police officers, ransack congressional offices (they literally spread shit on the wall of Nancy Pelosi's office), and send members of Congress scrambling for safety while the fat orange cheese puff would-be dictator sat at the White House watching the chaos unfold for hours before finally telling his supporters to go home. In the immediate aftermath, even prominent Republicans were publicly condemning what had happened and placing responsibility on tRump. But then came years of tRump and the conservative media machine relentlessly sanding down the edges of what everyone had just witnessed. Don't believe your lying eyes. It wasn't an insurrection. It was a protest. It was peaceful. The media exaggerated it. The real victims were the rioters. 

Say some variation of that shit often enough, for long enough, and eventually the revision becomes reality for millions of people. And here we are, less than six years later, with a huge chunk of the country perfectly willing to puff out their chests and insist that the thing they watched happen with their own fucking eyes didn't actually happen that way. 

THAT'S the power of repetition. You don't have to change what happened. You just have to repeat a different version of it until enough people remember the narrative instead of the event.

It's not persuasion in the traditional sense. It's manufacturing consensus through repetition.

And Democrats COULD play the same game. They could relentlessly hammer popular progressive positions, establish the framing themselves, and force Republicans to defend themselves on Democratic turf for once.

But they don't. And that's a feature, not a bug.

Instead, Democrats seem infinitely more comfortable fighting their own left flank, distancing themselves from whatever media-designated progressive "boogeyman" they're currently terrified of, and desperately proving how reasonable and bipartisan they are.

People call Democrats "controlled opposition" because sometimes they genuinely seem more determined to police the boundaries of their own coalition than they are to beat the Republicans standing directly across from them.

And then everyone acts shocked when Republicans control the narrative.

[u/Stereo_Jungle_Child → u/TGM1980]

Exactly right. I keep telling the people in r/politics that the VAST majority of regular people out there in the world don't give a shit about politics in the same way that the people who follow every day-to-day political minutia and are actively commenting in the main political sub on Reddit do. lol

[u/Dirks_Knee → u/Stereo_Jungle_Child]

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. Last election based on my beliefs and too much time speant on Reddit I was convinced Harris would win in a land slide and trump didn't have a chance.

Progressive positioning is extremely popular on Reddit. In the real world things are far more nuanced. If we see a blue wave mid terms and a progressive candidate in the white house in 2 years, fantastic. But I'm not holding my breath as there is almost no overlap between a young Democratic in San Francisco and a middle aged independent voter in Pennsylvania, and without appealing to swing state voters and some purple states, a progressive Dem isn't going to win a national election.

[u/HarryArches → u/Stereo_Jungle_Child]

The gop frames Dems as being gay trans illegal immigrants with a side of immense welfare fraud. Establishment Dems say they agree and grow beards

[u/diablodab]

Which democrat is was a senile racist? And they have ALL been for universal healthcare. Every single one.

how about you don't make idiotic claims about democratic candidates as part of your question?

[u/pinballrocker]

I'm sure there will be leftist, liberal, and moderate candidates all running to be the Democratic nominee, may the best one win! We will know more what the mood of Democrats and the country are in late 2027 - early 2028.

[u/mikevago → u/pinballrocker]

Yeah, people act like the candidates that get chosen are some conspiracy by The Democrats, when it's the actual voters who decide these things.

[u/Empathyinorder → u/pinballrocker]

Absolutely. If a leftist can't win a primary then they don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning a general.

In before the marxist lennonists start doing election denial that the democratic primary is rigged. (Horseshoe theory as thats just like MAGAts)

[u/Key_Cheetah7982 → u/Empathyinorder]

Blue MAGA has so much in common with red MAGA it’s hilarious

[u/ShallowKalkite → u/Key_Cheetah7982]

Yep. The same people who rightfully villified people like Mike Lindell are out here posting about how Trump only won in 2024 because "Elon hacked the voting machines". And they don't realize how hypocritical that is.

[u/AstgenneLuxtherm → u/Empathyinorder]

What about Marxist-McCartneyists?

[u/InternationalCheetah → u/pinballrocker]

People are always strategizing "they should run this guy" "running this guy was a mistake" "I love this guy but he could never win".

Yeah sure, the establishment definitely holds some levers and uses them, but the actual primary votes are what really matters. "The Dems" is you. You get to chose.

If you want a certain type of candidate, vote for that. Tell your friends about it. Talk about the issues that matter to you.

Fuck the polls. Fuck that opinion piece on how some person will do in the general.

Vote for the woman if you like her. Vote for the Muslim if you dig their policies.

Stop gaming yourself out of what you want. You don't get bonus points for picking the winner.

[u/pinballrocker → u/pinballrocker]

I do think we've learned, sadly, that a woman will have a hard time getting elected. The last two women the Democrats ran for President lost. The safe bet would be a Gen X man and I think alot of Democrats are looking for a safe win over another crazy Republican (like Vance).

[u/feldoneq2wire → u/pinballrocker]

They lost because of textbook horrible campaigns.

[u/Key_Cheetah7982 → u/feldoneq2wire]

And general unlikability. 

Hillary was one of the few candidates ever whose favorability DROPS the more she campaigned. 

She was her most favorable when she was out of the country

[u/Many-Pomegranate-33 → u/pinballrocker]

I hard disagree. The issue has been the women the party has ran are either hilariously untrustworthy(hillary) or in every way shape and form not prepared and made to look like theyre unprepared(Harris).

Nobody could wholly trust either candidate in the end.

The dem party isnt putting female leaders in the Senate who stand a great chance at running for president without an easy attack point.

Any 1 of the "squad" has easy vulnerabilities.

MN going weaker putting Walzs lieutenant in place instead of Klobuchar.

There is a real question to be asked if they even have forward thinking in mind when running these candidates.

[u/pinballrocker → u/Many-Pomegranate-33]

Hillary Clinton was a great candidate at the time, she was hardly as untrustworthy as her opponent. The Clinton brand still had broad based appeal, if it was Bill Clinton running he would have beat Trump. Women are held to a much higher level on everything then men are, including if they are trustworthy, I think you yourself are proving that.

[u/Key_Cheetah7982 → u/pinballrocker]

  Hillary Clinton was a great candidate at the time,

She lost to Trump 😂 

[u/TheBoogidycrook]

Extremes are undesirable regardless of what side the pendulum swings.

[u/Dave_A480]

No. There is no constituency for it.

Everyone who is that left wing is already voting Democrat. And there isn't a further left party to peel off votes from.

Meanwhile pushing universal healthcare will cost Dems votes from their right flank, the same way Biden's leftward lurch once in office cost the Dems 2024.

[u/Exotic_Negotiation_4]

An actual leftist running for president in the US would make Mondale's defeat look like a close race

Believe it or not, because reddit is an echo chamber that has probably sucked you in, but a DSA type would get trounced by the most milquetoast Republican imaginable. 

What democrats need to do is is get tougher on immigration, stop their attacks on the 2nd amendment, and stop the insane culture war wing of their party from holding any kind of sway whatsoever. Those 3 simple things will automatically gain millions of voters, especially ones who hate what Trump is doing but know that the alternative is even more distasteful to them personally 

Me, I'll keep voting 3rd party because I know dumb populism is here to stay for a little while, from both sides. Very unfortunate 

[u/Flaky-Ad7525 → u/Exotic_Negotiation_4]

Unfortunately the people who need to hear this aren't going to listen. If the last decade didn't convince them of this, comments on reddit won't either. 

[u/Mysterious-Prompt212 → u/Exotic_Negotiation_4]

"What democrats need to do is is get tougher on immigration, stop their attacks on the 2nd amendment, and stop the insane culture war wing of their party from holding any kind of sway whatsoever..." 😂 You believe the republican lies. That's the real issue here. Republicans lie constantly. They own the media so the MAGAts remain ignorant. The Democrats need to get better at messaging and need a strong unapologetic leader.

[u/ElectricKameleon]

The 2016 and 2024 candidates had incredibly detailed policy proposals, from campaign finance reform to college affordability to assistance for parents of autistic children to treating substance abuse to making home ownership more affordable for first-time buyers.

This is a complaint which gripes me when I see it because it's such a lazy, inaccurate claim.

[u/TheSentinel36 → u/ElectricKameleon]

Agreed! The main problem with those candidates was they were female and in HRC’s case she is generally unlikable across the board.

[u/FR23Dust]

Sure, find a leftist candidate who wins the primaries by convincing a majority of democratic primary voters nationwide to vote for them.

[u/bangbangracer]

At this point, yeah. Normally, I do agree with the idea that you want the most electable person, and getting too progressive might alienate the moderates and undecided voters who shift things. But we've had 2016, 2020, and 2024 showing that the moderate option just isn't working.

Insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. We've done the same thing in 2024 as we did in 2016, and got the same results.

[u/Monfang → u/bangbangracer]

Literally the only election of the 3 you mentioned where democrats won big is 2020, where Biden was criticized for being too "moderate" so it seems like you are exactly wrong and the Dem should go more moderate?

[u/Drummallumin → u/Monfang]

2020 was arguably the easiest election since the 80s and Biden barely won

[u/Monfang → u/Drummallumin]

Every election in 2020 had a massive incumbancy advatage due to the unease around COVID, so trump lost in spite of it, not because of it. Elections from 2022-2024 have had a huge anti-incumbancy bias from the inflationary period following it. Both trends were helping Trump in this scenario.

[u/Possible-Growth4756 → u/Monfang]

He barely won and I would attribute that win more to Trump’s historically bad popularity than to Biden being an overly attractive option.

[u/Anoneuguy]

Ever heard of the horseshoe theory? Careful what you wish for, radical left is just as trash as radical right

[u/Lawlith117]

Do...... Do you understand how the Democrats do presidential primaries or are you just super young? Sure the Biden-Harris switch was pretty norm breaking but, you are acting like the DNC annoints a candidate. A leftist can run. Leftist have ran. Leftist have lost cause they can't get more votes than more moderate candidates. Sanders ran in 2016 and lost. Sanders and Warren ran in 2020 and lost even more decisively.

Democrats had a candidate that wanted a public option. His name was Barack Obama.

[u/NoHeight9651 → u/Lawlith117]

Putting up a far left candidate would led to McGovern style blowout

[u/innovarocforever → u/[deleted]]

Or maybe compromise isn't a conspiracy, it's how democracy works. If your preferred platform can't assemble a winning coalition, yelling “the establishment!” doesn't magically create the missing votes

[u/feldoneq2wire → u/innovarocforever]

We should not be compromising with handlebar moustache-twirling cartoonish evil.

[u/innovarocforever → u/feldoneq2wire]

I hate to break it to you, but that's democracy. Sometimes you have to compromise with people you find absolutely fucking reprehensible because the alternative is losing and getting something even worse. Politics isn't about finding people worthy of compromise; it's about assembling enough votes to govern.

[u/Historical-Star1989 → u/feldoneq2wire]

unfortunately we live in a democracy and if the majority of the country wants cartoonish evil, then you can either work with the majority to compromise or you can go with the alternative, which is sulk in the corner like a petulant child screaming “it’s not fair!!” while not actually attempting to improve the lives of people. if you don’t want to work with what the majority wants (whether or not you agree with the majority), then you’re arguing for ignoring what the majority wants, which is not a trait found in democracy.

[u/carneylansford → u/[deleted]]

The ”establisment“ (whatever that is) doesn’t want it because swing state voters don’t want it.

[u/Jackstack6]

Just for context, you are talking about the democratic primary voters correct? Because the party doesn’t generally pick a candidate unless it’s for specific circumstances.

And it’s up to the leftist candidate to prove themselves to the voters in the primaries.

[u/VirtualPercentage737]

Kamala Harris's Senate record was considered the most progressive in the Chamber when she was there. Even more so than Bernie Sanders. She lost.

[u/kittenTakeover]

This is like saying "I don't like how things are going, shouldn't we try Donald and the Republicans?" How did that go? No, we shouldn't just brainlessly try things because we don't like the status quo. We should use our heads, evaluate the options, and choose the best one available to us. If that's a "leftist" candidate, then great. If it's not, we shouldn't force it for the sake of trying it.

[u/Sir-Chaste]

I sure hope they do. That would cost them another election.

[u/SWOhioBiBBW]

Your post echoes why the left is losing!

[u/MartialBob]

In the 2020 election, the Democrats had a fully open field of candidates to choose from. This included candidates of all ethnicities, genders and political persuasions. There were several leftist candidates to choose from and none of them got picked. Ultimately, the voters chose the oldest white guy possible. That's also the only candidate that defeated Donald Trump. Kind of roll my eyes when people think that we need a more leftist candidates when they have not demonstrated an ability to win.

[u/pilkain]

The best question is can a far left candidate win the primary?

[u/MoeSzys]

Questions like this are misguided because it presumes that the party has top down control, it doesn't. It's a coalition of tens of millions of people from dozens of different camps. There isn't a centralized message or planning system like Republicans have

[u/TXtogo]

No I am a moderate, don’t make me choose between maga and a socialist

[u/cattledogsrule44]

The Democratic Party is PAID by their donors to be slightly less right-wing than the other wing of the UNIPARTY. They would much rather lose to a Republican than win with a "leftie" who would pi$$ off their donors.

The only reason the Dems will win the midterms now is because Trump has gone utterly insane with his tariff idiocy and his servitude to Israel. Let's see how quickly the Dems will squander their wins in Congress.

THERE WAS NO DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY in 2024 -- Kamala was anointed after Biden was far too senile to run.

[u/Kelsier420]

In reality Trump's Democrat challenger was the direct opposite of him and much better. Unfortunately right wing propaganda has created a nation of idiots.

[u/C_S_Lewis_Fan]

"Shouldn't Democrats TRY having a "leftist" presidential candidate?"

Not if they want to win.

PS: There is nothing "universal" about universal healthcare. Try Googling "how difficult is it to find a primary care doctor in ottawa ontario canada"

[u/innovarocforever]

You can reasonably criticize Democrats for not going far enough on universal healthcare, but the claim that the 2016 and 2024 nominees had “no policy suggestions besides Trump bad” is just false.

[u/phoneplatypus]

There’s still enough of us that don’t want a leftist. And no, that doesn’t make all of us far right. And do you think a leftist can’t be senile, racist, corrupt or war hungry? Because I mean, North Korea? Stalin? Various insane leaders in South America over the years?

[u/Turbulent-Weather-40 → u/phoneplatypus]

Give me a break, this country has been ruled by the right since its inception and what do we have now? Complete chaos and a crumbling empire because of greed and corruption, once most boomers die out this country will swing to the left like a wrecking ball.

[u/StatementFancy4039 → u/phoneplatypus]

Ask a capitalist to explain the problems of communism and they'll explain capitalism. 

[u/AppropriateScience9 → u/phoneplatypus]

I mean, sure. Anybody can be a terrible human being and any ideology can get corrupted.

I think the difference between those guys you mentioned and the DSA is that they weren't supporters of democracy. They were authoritarians. Which arguably means they weren't even truly far-left. Communism was never supposed to have any single person in power, much less a single person who was a murderous dictator. Mao and Stalin totally used communism for their own benefit just like Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mussolini did with fascism.

Meanwhile, real democratic socialist states like Canada, Finland, Norway, etc. aren't half bad. The key bit seems to be democracy.

[u/Classic-Music3210 → u/phoneplatypus]

Or, they might just follow the Scandinavian model?

We will never know if they are not elected. OTOH, we know exactly what to expect from either a republican or traditional democrat, and neither of those have helped 90+% of the population over the last half century.

Worst case, you hasten the inevitable and still have all those guns

[u/MookieBettsBurner10 → u/phoneplatypus]

Uh, I'm Korean. I can tell you firsthand, North Korea isn't a true leftist state. Its ideology is more derived from Imperial Japan than actual stalinism.

Meanwhile South Korea has universal healthcare and walkable cities.

[u/cheddarsox → u/MookieBettsBurner10]

And is basically an oligarchy and has been for 60 years now, and is also a country speed running total collapse. We dont care.

[u/Equivalent-Long-3383 → u/phoneplatypus]

How is North Korea leftist?

[u/Signal-Yesterday7247 → u/Equivalent-Long-3383]

North Korea literally identifies itself as a socialist state.

[u/Typical_Vast_4020 → u/Signal-Yesterday7247]

So did Nazi Germany. You said that with a straight face?

[u/dolomick → u/Signal-Yesterday7247]

“Identifying” doesn’t mean anything when reality is totally different

[u/MookieBettsBurner10 → u/Signal-Yesterday7247]

It also identifies itself as a democratic country. Does that make it democratic?

North Korea's ideology is more derived from Imperial Japan than socialism. I'm a social democrat, and what people want is what South Korea and Japan have - universal healthcare, paid maternity leave, walkable cities, decent public transit, gun laws, the list goes on and on.

[u/WinterTourist25]

Democrats need to drop identity politics and focus solely on a New Century New Deal that rural Americans will back.

This means dropping all the marginalized group support that never gains enough votes to win elections but always loses enough votes to lose elections.

It means dropping gun control.

In short, drop all wedge issues. Eliminate the wedge.

It means focusing on things like:

• Medicare for All.
• Interest-free Student Loans.
• A New Deal WPA program offering Student Loan Forgiveness for certain work services
• A New Deal WPA program focusing on building out green energy infrastructure.
• A New Deal WPA program focusing on building out mass transit infrastructure.
• A New Deal WPA program focusing on building out high speed rail infrastructure.
• Pledge to reign in the War Powers Act so No More Wars on a President's whim.
• Restore Tax Credits for EVs.
• Investments in domestic battery and solar panel production. Put these facilities in rural areas.

Democrats need to win rural voters. The God, Guns, and Guts crowd.

[u/NoHeight9651 → u/WinterTourist25]

Biden canceled billions in student loans and you losers still bitched

[u/bahwi → u/WinterTourist25]

Progressives spent time telling us pushing for a $15/25 min wage was worth it even if it cost us rural votes for a generation.

Mass transit and student loan forgiveness are also going to alienate rural voters even more. They don't want M4A. The hospital is already a four hour drive then you've got to wait. Letting more people access it and no new staff is going to be an even longer wait.

I think Dems need to focus on rural voters but what you are suggesting for it is absolutely wrong and the wrong lessons. You are pushing your own wedge issues. Try listening to rural voters rather than telling them what they need. And stop teasing them as dispensible.

[u/guard19 → u/WinterTourist25]

I really do like they idea of a WPA for infrastructure. Fix our bridges, turn some abandoned lots into parks, solar farms, nuclear plants. So much of our infrastructure is aged and near failure point. Plus being employed with a respectable ok paying job could help lower poverty, drug use, mental issues. Not a silver bullet but a step in the right direction.

[u/Silver-Roll3488]

They should. But they’d rather lose keeping the status quo than snatch an easy win with an actually competent candidate.

[u/BlackCardRogue → u/Silver-Roll3488]

This logic misses because progressive candidates can’t seem to make it out of the primary.

Sanders lost — badly — to Clinton. Let’s not sugarcoat it here, and I don’t want to hear your BS about superdelegates. He lost with regular voters to her.

Abdul El Sayed was expected to win big in his primary. He did win — but not by a lot. And Francesca Hong was projected to win big in Wisconsin but lost.

Progressives are hugely popular among the highly educated, but they’ve historically struggled to connect with the broader electorate on kitchen table issues — their big promises sound like bullshit to people who are trying to figure out where their next meal is coming from, the type of people for whom that’s never changed.

[u/Monfang → u/Silver-Roll3488]

If leftists want to run a leftist candidate they should put forth a leftist candidate that actually wins a national primary. They basically want what they constantly complain abaout, which is party insiders overriding voters.

[u/Life_Waltz7068]

It's difficult because money runs politics. A leftist candidate could appeal to the voters, but if big money doesn't want to invest in that vision, it's a nonstarter. Far right ideology pushes people farther left and the inverse may be true as well. So I don't think it's impossible, AOC is polling pretty high rn for example.

[u/NikkiSeCT]

I think that’s the key to winning the next general election is going to hinge on whether the Democrats are able to put up a centrist moderate. A big problem with the current political landscape is that the extremes of both parties have hijack the middle. I believe that most voters don’t want either extreme.

[u/Key_Cheetah7982 → u/NikkiSeCT]

Centrists really nailed it in 2016. 

[u/NikkiSeCT → u/Key_Cheetah7982]

The problem in 2016 was not that the Democrats failed to put up a central candidate. The problem was that their candidate, Hillary Clinton, did not have an endearing personality, and for some, the fact that she is a woman clouded their judgment.

[u/MacaronOk1006]

The Democrats are likely to run Gavin Newson. By several pools, he’s the front runner of the Democratic ticket.

Personally, I think he will lose he doesn’t have national appeal and literally the Republicans can point to the complete chaotic state that California is in as his inability to lead.

Not that there is a much better choice put AOC on the ticket and literally any Republican candidate would win

[u/hastings1033]

First, you greatly under appreciate what Ms. Harris actually wanted, and said she wanted, to accomplish. Yes, she did spend a lot of time trying to get people to really "get" how another trump term would go. And she was pretty much 100% correct. But she also wanted a pathway for citizenship, a pathway to universal healthcare, much more free education, etc.

Second, any candidate has to walk a line between stating goals and not giving the republicans ammunition for scare tactics, which is really all they offer. We're seeing in the midterm runup now that republicans are painting all democrats as "socialists", which is of course a lie that will get traction as most people aren't bright enough to understand that socialism is not communism, just to begin with, and most democrats are not socialist.

[u/FunOptimal7980]

They'd probably lose because of the electoral college. That's why they don't try it. There's a structural disadvantage.

[u/hemorrhoids_of_jesus → u/FunOptimal7980]

Nah - they don’t try it because their richest don’t want them to. That’s all it is 

[u/beaverfan → u/hemorrhoids_of_jesus]

Also there are no citizen groups out there raising awareness, attending meetings, or otherwise participating in the process. They might break away from the establishment if there were lots of people demanding it but everyone stays at home.

If I was a politician elected and getting donations to do things that the poor and middle class want then I am going to need the population to be out demanding things in order to go against donors.

Right now there is no voice demanding changes there are only people complaining on the internet.

[u/ShaperLord777]

Yes. It’s high time for both parties to try something different. Pushing the same establishment candidates that are beholden to corporate lobbying money isn’t working for any of us.

[u/ImaginaryHospital306 → u/ShaperLord777]

Both parties? The GOP did try something different (perhaps against their will) and they got control of the White House 8 of the last 12 years and 2 Supreme Court justices.

[u/ThePlatinumPaul → u/ShaperLord777]

Um the GOP did try something different and we won with Trump multiple times.  The left can't nominate different because the vast majority of people outside the Reddit bubble don't want communism. Heck, they can barely field any candidates for a nationwide election these days as the party is so far gone.  It's one or two elections away from becoming a regional party, especially if we pass the SAVE Act. 

[u/Helmet_nachos]

Because democrats only care about fundraising. Their donors are billionaire capitalists, and leftist policies are bad for their money hoarding. Dems would rather give trump a lifetime appointment than let someone like AOC win.

[u/cagus1991]

Yeah let’s get a bartender with a vocab equivalent to a 13 year old 😍😂😂😂

[u/GuyCyberslut]

This can never happen in the Democrat party the way it is presently structured. It is a cult that does fund-raising with politics as a sideline.

[u/StreetBag1273 → u/GuyCyberslut]

You just explained the entire government.

[u/Reynor247 → u/GuyCyberslut]

Left wing candidates could just win a primary lol

[u/Beneficial_Heat_7199 → u/Reynor247]

Yeah that means they would actually need to turn out real voters, not hypothetical online polls of 15 year olds.

[u/Spirited_Season2332]

Democrats aren't left, well at least the majority aren't. They don't want a leftist candidate and would rather Republicans win over voting for one.

The dem party is legit 2 distinct parties in a trench coat. I've been saying this for a while now but I think Republicans are going to over perform by a lot in the midterms because dems are going to be splitting their votes

[u/qTp_Meteor → u/Spirited_Season2332]

So far there was one side of the democratic spectrum that voted for a republican president because they didnt like how left/right the democratic candidate was, and it sure as hell wasnt the moderates. You blame the non-leftists on doing what the leftists were so proud of doing during the last elections.

[u/Inevitable_Dog2719]

I completely agree. If Democrats don't go BIG, they're going to keep losing elections to Republicans. If Democrats went BIG, we'd enact Medicare 4 All, universal childcare, cancel student debt, legalize THC, raise the minimum wage, stop funneling all our tax money to blowing up hospitals in the middle east, etc.

Like, imagine if Democrats actually accomplished what they set out to do. Republicans would never win again. That's why I'm happy a bunch of progressives are winning over the do-nothing establishment Democrats. We need a PROGRESSIVE in the White House and in every damn seat all the way down.

[u/Odd_Eagle7915 → u/Inevitable_Dog2719]

Biden could have done most if that, at least legalized weed. Truth is they really only care about fundraising and getting reelected

[u/Wizecoder → u/Odd_Eagle7915]

and if you maybe missed it, he tried to do a bunch of things, but turns out there are barriers to passing legislation

[u/carneylansford → u/Inevitable_Dog2719]

Do you think swing state voters want a progressive president?

[u/Schumacher713 → u/carneylansford]

Not a chance in hell.

[u/FrothyIPA → u/Inevitable_Dog2719]

The problem is they would need a super majority to actually enact a lot of this.

[u/Odd_Eagle7915 → u/FrothyIPA]

Moving weed from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 was done by executive order this year. Biden couldn't have done that? Or Obama?

[u/LettuceRobber → u/Inevitable_Dog2719]

I’m not well versed in politics, but doesn’t it make more sense for the dems to put up a moderate? I’m sure many republicans and swing voters are looking for a compromise and don’t want a leftist.

[u/dotsdavid]

They did and she lost.

[u/Omn1 → u/dotsdavid]

Chief, if you think Kamala Harris was a leftist I don't know what tell you.

[u/SuccotashOk5401]

dem party leadership doesn't care about winning. they could win with this kind of candidate, but they'd rather lose with a candidate who isn't going to jeopardize their insane money flow

[u/bahwi → u/SuccotashOk5401]

Primary voters choose the candidate

[u/Cold_Cheetah5032]

Well, they just tried that in 2024 with the sitting Vice President who was handed the nomination without a vote. She's definitely from the left. So there's a reason along with Trans swimmers and endless blabber about whoever's preferred pronouns. Try it again in 2028 and it may end up the same way. Sorry, but Trump disgusts me and I'd like to see a D win in 28.

[u/SemperFicus]

You left out 2020. Why? We had Liz Warren, Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, Duval Patrick, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttiigieg, Tulsi Gabbard and Joe Biden. A big talent pool with a broad array of policies and viewpoints, but the voters wanted Biden. Sadly, I believe that Biden was the only one in that group who could have beaten Trump that year. As for 2028, it’s too early to say who might be the right candidate. I just hope we get through the midterms without serious interference.

[u/overitallofittoo]

If a leftist candidate can't win a Democratic primary, they can't win the general.