“We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not.”

That’s gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I’ve heard in a while.

  • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yeah that worked real well for the people that didn’t vote for Hillary because sanders that shafted by the DNC. DNC never learned their lesson and Trump winning again I doubt they will learn.

    • floppade [he/him]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I worked for that campaign during that election cycle. You would think that the DNC and coordinated campaigns would learn that not listening to voters hurts you. Shaming them didn’t work last time either. They didn’t fund outreach. They didn’t listen to organizers on the ground. They didn’t care.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        You would think that the DNC and coordinated campaigns would learn that not listening to voters hurts you.

        They would rather lose than listen to voters.

    • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      DNC never learned their lesson

      At this point I honestly think the lesson they’ve learned is that curb-stomping the progressives and daring them to stay at home gets us all 4 years of punishment under the GOP and in the next election they get 100% of what they wanted in the first place without any actual lefties having power.

      When you remember FDR, this is exactly what they did then- FDR, scion of privilege, ran on a progressive platform for an electorate thirsty for lefty policy. He surrounded himself with other left-leaning bluebloods interested in progressive politics but dead set against actual leftists gaining power. They doled out progressive policies as political favors but strictly kept the rabble out of actual power.

      Likewise, in the waning years of the Prussian Empire, Otto von Bismarck (a staunch monarchist, facing an uprising of social democracy politics he despised) famously undertook socialist-y policies like socialized medicine and old-age insurance/pensions to steal political support from the social democrats while keeping them strictly out of power.

      • Spacehooks@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I could be wrong but I don’t see that happening until the GOP shatters. I see Dems traditionally as a coalition of basically not GOP voters. Just using single voter issues for this example, Let’s say we had a viable pro choice and pro gun third party, how many people from the current 2 parties would that pull from. I would wager mostly from the dem side which means larger chance of GOP winning. Which is a risk DEMs won’t take and I feel the DNC know this.