Why do Democrats keep choosing losers to run for office?

[NAME REMOVED]

Pew research reported that Hilary Clinton was the most unpopular First Lady in history, back in 2001. Yet the Democratic Party rigged the Primaries so she could beat Bernie Sanders, a much more popular candidate, who would have beat Trump.  Then the Democrats chose Biden in 2020, someone the party should ahve went with in 2000 or 2016. Considering his age, it was unlikely he would finish off two terms with full cognitive abilities. Only COVID prevented Trump from serving two consecutive terms.

The party was probably well aware of Biden's cognitive decline by 2022. They should have forced him out. However, I guess they thought anyone could beat Trump at that point, and gambled on a loser. Then instead of having a proper primary, the party chose Kamala Harris, who was even worse than Hilary. All they had to do was go with Pete Buttigieg, and goodbye Trump.

If there are still elections allowed in 2028 (there is always the chance that MAGA can outlaw elections by then), let's hope the Democrats chose wisely. 

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Pew research reported that Hilary Clinton was the most unpopular First Lady in history, back in 2001. Yet the Democratic Party rigged the Primaries so she could beat Bernie Sanders, a much more popular candidate, who would have beat Trump.  Then the Democrats chose Biden in 2020, someone the party should ahve went with in 2000 or 2016. Considering his age, it was unlikely he would finish off two terms with full cognitive abilities. Only COVID prevented Trump from serving two consecutive terms.

The party was probably well aware of Biden's cognitive decline by 2022. They should have forced him out. However, I guess they thought anyone could beat Trump at that point, and gambled on a loser. Then instead of having a proper primary, the party chose Kamala Harris, who was even worse than Hilary. All they had to do was go with Pete Buttigieg, and goodbye Trump.

If there are still elections allowed in 2028 (there is always the chance that MAGA can outlaw elections by then), let's hope the Democrats chose wisely. 

Your premises are erroneous. Bernie had his fanatics, but NOT very many, and would not likely have beaten Trump.

[NAME REMOVED]

Just now, robosmith said:

Your premises are erroneous. Bernie had his fanatics, but NOT very many, and would not likely have beaten Trump.

Bernie would ahve performed as well as Hilary. The difference is, that Bernie would have won the rust belt, and the Presidency.  

 

Face it, the Democrats bet on a woman that most Americans hated.  They lost.

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Pew research reported that Hilary Clinton was the most unpopular First Lady in history, back in 2001. Yet the Democratic Party rigged the Primaries so she could beat Bernie Sanders, a much more popular candidate, who would have beat Trump.  Then the Democrats chose Biden in 2020, someone the party should ahve went with in 2000 or 2016. Considering his age, it was unlikely he would finish off two terms with full cognitive abilities. Only COVID prevented Trump from serving two consecutive terms.

The party was probably well aware of Biden's cognitive decline by 2022. They should have forced him out. However, I guess they thought anyone could beat Trump at that point, and gambled on a loser. Then instead of having a proper primary, the party chose Kamala Harris, who was even worse than Hilary. All they had to do was go with Pete Buttigieg, and goodbye Trump.

If there are still elections allowed in 2028 (there is always the chance that MAGA can outlaw elections by then), let's hope the Democrats chose wisely. 

A lot of who the democrats push to be the nominee depends on their ability for fundraising. Hillary and Bill Clinton were amazing fundraisers. Biden rocked in the cash like nobody's business. The democrats tend to prize that a great deal.

To a degree that plays a role in All American politics. It's one of the things that our canadian federal system shelters us from because donations are capped.

There's also an interesting problem that was highlighted by a rather extensive research study. The upper echelon elite democrats are vastly disconnected from the average person. This is why they believed that things like women's Reproductive Rights would win them the election. It was hyper important to the elites, but it wasn't nearly as important to the average democrat who is more worried about putting food on their table. They believed that trump was an existential threat to the democracy of the united states, and the average person just wasn't buying that so that campaign didn't resonate.

And they  tried once again to put together the intersectional coalition that Obama successfully did and they couldn't.

[Fluffypants]

Democrats believe that the movie "She's All That" was a documentary. They think they can just manufacture a prom queen. Here is what happened at DNC HQ with Obama and Bill Clinton.

 

Edited November 26, 2024 by Fluffypants

[ironstone]

47 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Pew research reported that Hilary Clinton was the most unpopular First Lady in history, back in 2001. Yet the Democratic Party rigged the Primaries so she could beat Bernie Sanders, a much more popular candidate, who would have beat Trump.  Then the Democrats chose Biden in 2020, someone the party should ahve went with in 2000 or 2016. Considering his age, it was unlikely he would finish off two terms with full cognitive abilities. Only COVID prevented Trump from serving two consecutive terms.

The party was probably well aware of Biden's cognitive decline by 2022. They should have forced him out. However, I guess they thought anyone could beat Trump at that point, and gambled on a loser. Then instead of having a proper primary, the party chose Kamala Harris, who was even worse than Hilary. All they had to do was go with Pete Buttigieg, and goodbye Trump.

If there are still elections allowed in 2028 (there is always the chance that MAGA can outlaw elections by then), let's hope the Democrats chose wisely. 

You've fallen for the same propaganda if you believe that Pete Buttigieg would have been the ideal candidate to beat Trump. There was nothing in his record to suggest that he was qualified to be president. The only reason he got the Transportation Secretary post was because of DEI.

The Democrats are fortunate to have been able to count on the unwavering support of the mainstream media, Hollywood and big tech with the current exception being X.

So are you admitting that while the above mentioned were telling the American public how wonderful Kamala Harris was, they were lying the whole time?

[NAME REMOVED]

1 minute ago, ironstone said:

You've fallen for the same propaganda if you believe that Pete Buttigieg would have been the ideal candidate to beat Trump. There was nothing in his record to suggest that he was qualified to be president. The only reason he got the Transportation Secretary post was because of DEI.

The Democrats are fortunate to have been able to count on the unwavering support of the mainstream media, Hollywood and big tech with the current exception being X.

So are you admitting that while the above mentioned were telling the American public how wonderful Kamala Harris was, they were lying the whole time?

Go away.

[myata]

The answer is simple: they are detached. Locked into an alternate reality they persistently paint and create for themselves and a string of wake up calls does little or nothing to dispel it. Privilege, entitlement to govern. Elitism, best for me in place and ahead of the best for the people. "I can" syndrome. And it goes on and on. Oh well.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, myata said:

The answer is simple:

Your brain is simple. Learn to speak English if you want anyone to take you seriously

[myata]

The pattern is very simple: in all cases, the candidates were those of the establishment; not necessarily those with the vision and trust in the society; not even those with the highest chance of winning. And it keeps on stepping into the same pothole because it just can't see the difference lost this ability of objective, honest look. Think about nominating Joe. How dumber could it have been? Nope. Connection lost.

It really, honestly thinks that it, itself is the best America can come up with. Another byproduct of binary politics where past certain point, the sole meaning of politics becomes winning the prize not having a cause, competence and vision.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, myata said:

The pattern is very simple:

So is the English language but you can't figure that out either

[NAME REMOVED]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So is the English language but you can't figure that out either

I think @myata speaks perfect English, and I enjoy his posts.

[Nationalist]

16 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Pew research reported that Hilary Clinton was the most unpopular First Lady in history, back in 2001. Yet the Democratic Party rigged the Primaries so she could beat Bernie Sanders, a much more popular candidate, who would have beat Trump.  Then the Democrats chose Biden in 2020, someone the party should ahve went with in 2000 or 2016. Considering his age, it was unlikely he would finish off two terms with full cognitive abilities. Only COVID prevented Trump from serving two consecutive terms.

The party was probably well aware of Biden's cognitive decline by 2022. They should have forced him out. However, I guess they thought anyone could beat Trump at that point, and gambled on a loser. Then instead of having a proper primary, the party chose Kamala Harris, who was even worse than Hilary. All they had to do was go with Pete Buttigieg, and goodbye Trump.

If there are still elections allowed in 2028 (there is always the chance that MAGA can outlaw elections by then), let's hope the Democrats chose wisely. 

I think I know why. The Democrats tend to pick candidates based on their overwhelming sense of perceived righteousness. For them, emotional reaction is paramount. That worked for Barry. It did not for Hilary-Billary. It tanked for Kamala.

People want effectiveness now. Not some faux morality.

[Deluge]

17 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Pew research reported that Hilary Clinton was the most unpopular First Lady in history, back in 2001. Yet the Democratic Party rigged the Primaries so she could beat Bernie Sanders, a much more popular candidate, who would have beat Trump.  Then the Democrats chose Biden in 2020, someone the party should ahve went with in 2000 or 2016. Considering his age, it was unlikely he would finish off two terms with full cognitive abilities. Only COVID prevented Trump from serving two consecutive terms.

The party was probably well aware of Biden's cognitive decline by 2022. They should have forced him out. However, I guess they thought anyone could beat Trump at that point, and gambled on a loser. Then instead of having a proper primary, the party chose Kamala Harris, who was even worse than Hilary. All they had to do was go with Pete Buttigieg, and goodbye Trump.

If there are still elections allowed in 2028 (there is always the chance that MAGA can outlaw elections by then), let's hope the Democrats chose wisely. 

The democrats' problem is that they have too many factions. One group is communistic, another group is socialistic, one side wants mob rule, another wants a combination of all 3, so they pick someone who isn't completely anti-American and runs with him or her.

It's a f*cking train wreck over there. 

[myata]

Democrats knew that this was a critical decision point not just for the States but also for the world, and they failed it patently. Nominating Joe was a disaster as it was commented here. Not understanding or pretending, the consequences of this catastrophic choice, the ultimate irresponsibility. Can't be excused by anything. Simply not enough. An inexcusable underachievement that will reverberate through history and can have dire consequences for the world.

The postmortem is simple: binary politics has driven both parties to the ultimate loss of responsibility and dereliction of the duty to the people. In their turn, people chose to abandon their duty to democracy being shown an example how it's done. Whoever could claim that there can be an easy way out of here is living in an alternate reality. I honestly see no easy or obvious paths back to normality.

[CdnFox]

8 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

I think @myata speaks perfect English, and I enjoy his posts.

I think I've told you that too much NyQuil is bad for you. Honestly it says more about you than him

[WestCanMan]

1: Bernie's not a Dem, he's an independent. 

2: Which Democrat isn't a loser? Pelosi? Schiff? AOC? Omar? Swallwell? Tlaib? Pressley? Buttigieg? Neck Bolts? Walz? Newsom? Good luck picking a "winner" from that crowd. The DNC is a proctologist's paradise, they're all a-holes 24/7.

3. By saying that Bernie should have been the leader in 2016, you're actually acknowledging that THE BEST "DEM" THEY HAD WASN'T EVEN AN ACTUAL DEMI! 🤣 They needed to borrow a commie, who ran as an "independent"  😉, to run for them if they wanted a chance to win!!!

 

And while we're on the topic of commie Dems, what's with their leaders' fascination with China? Walz and Sanders both go there so often that they're probably honorary citizens by now, and Joe & Co raked in at least $11M from the Chinese gov't's favourite agent.

In short, the Dems' best candidate in 2016, their best candidate in 2020, and their VP candidate in 2024 were all Chinese gov't sycophants....

But hey, Russian collusion, am I right????? 😉 You just run out there with your Glock and your man-bun, DUI, and save 'Murica from tha Ruskeez!!!!!