sundin13 said:
Assuming that story is accurate, why do people think that Dems would have done significantly better given a longer campaign? A shorter campaign helps maintain enthusiasm and allows the candidate to run a campaign focused on the general election instead of having to pivot after the primary. My take is that Dems were doomed from the start because of idiots not understanding the economy. |
Sorry, that is a massively bullshit take. First of all, you find reasons why the Dems were doomed from the start. But the truth is, that in every election you will find reasons that are unfortunate for one party or another. So why not pack it in from the start, why raise 1 billion dollar from donors, who probably could use it better? Nah, you can win every election. Is it hard? You bet it is, but even if the basics are in your favor.
A longer campaign may not seem so fresh, but political stances are often pretty set in stone. A longer campaign helps to slowly grind away at these positions, a longer campaigns helps to solidify talking points that are beneficial for a party. The republicans did that, you see they always were on about border policies and immigrants. This sets in over time so that even for people who at the start didn't take this topic too seriously will think it is a serious issue at the end. That is what a long campaign does for you. If you set the talking points (which I would argue the democrats also did badly by choosing talking points that were irrelevant for a majority of people).
And you all have to stop calling people idiots who are different from you. Do you really think calling everyone idiots will make them vote your way the next time?
But the biggest blunder is blaming people not understanding economy. Bernie Sanders said 60% of americans live paycheck to paycheck. What does understanding the economy help these people exactly? Living paycheck to paycheck is a majorly shitty situation and all your insight into worldwide economic development doesn't help.
Let's make up a story. What if, the Democratic presidency instead of telling everyone to suck it up because worldwide economic situation is bad, would be understanding of the problems the working class people face. What if they create programs to help the people that are poor and are hardest hit? What if they supported their people instead of big corporations? Well, Democrats would win the presidency, many terms in succession. They would withstand the sirens call of fascism while the rest of the world gives in and elects or nearly elects fascist governments.
How do I know this? I know this, because this isn't a hypothetical about now, it is a history lesson. The world was hit by a major economic crisis about a hundred years ago. President Franklin D. Roosevelt created programs to help the working americans like the New Deal. The result was that FDR won four consecutive terms as president and the US withstand fascism while most of the world became fascist regimes.
So stop telling people to suck it up, stop telling them they "need to understand the economy", instead do something to help these people, and please for the love of god stop telling working class people they are idiots and start taking them seriously. Because they may have a different live path than you, but that doesn't mean you are in any way better than them.
EDIT: And because I know that people will come in here and scream at me: WHY DO YOU NOT CRITICIZE THE RIGHT? Simple answer: criticizing is a way to make better, and I am not here to improve the right. They are doing well enough on their own, probably because some strategists have recognized things I said here and used it in their favor. Or maybe they just lucked out. I don't know. But they don't need my help and I am unwilling to give them help.
Last edited by Mnementh - 2 days ago
