“Democrat voters want leftist leadership”
Not entirely sure thats a flex
That’s funny, because the dnc does not share any of her ideology, and it’s not even close
Yeah she needs to spilt and be the face of an actual workers party, not the mask for the failed democrats.
AOC and Bernie should break off, start a new party and call it the Social Democrats … if for no other reason than that is what they espouse – a socially-conscious mandate that the government is to be there for the people, not the other way around.
If they do that the corporate Dems would buy up all of DC’s champagne. There is nothing they want more than to evict the left wing elements of the party and force them into electoral irrelevance, why would AOC et al do that for them?
Much as Bernie will definitely continue to be the face of the movement, I have doubts he has many years left for politics. We’re in need of new faces for that same initiative.
Because the DNC leadership doesn’t represent anyone except for the donors who own them.
The voters keep voting for the same corporate fellatio enthusiasts, so I guess they are representing their voters. The core Dem voters are as bad as, and walk hand-in-hand with, the DNC.
Coming in a distant second was close ally Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The pair recently went to various states with their Fighting Oligarchy tour. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) placed third in the survey with 8%.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris came in fourth with 6%. Following her was Pete Buttigieg with 5%, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) with 5%, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) with 4%, and California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) with 2%.
LOL, Chuck Schumer didn’t even place. That gives me a little hope.
If Chuck Schumer placed I would know that the end is nigh.
Agreed, but let’s take a moment to recognize that he is the highest ranked Democrat in the country, and the fact that no one sees him as the face of the party should be humiliating for him.
the fact that no one sees him as the face of the party should be humiliating for him.
I fucking hope so.
Other than just generally being far to the right of the people he’s supposed to faithfully represent, he’s so far in the pocket of fossil fuel interests that he needs a custom snorkel to breathe and he literally claimed that his “job is to keep the left Pro Israel” 🤮🤬
Schumer said his job is keeping the democrats in lockstep support of the state of Israel.
You might have to send a stern letter then!
I keep forgetting he’s a Democrat
Please don’t fuck this up DNC! Embrace the change!
Harris was supposed to be the one who’d get the Progressives excited and she got fewer votes than Biden did in 2020.
Why was she supposed to be? And why did she spend so much time on stage with conservative republicans trying to prove how middle of the road she was?
She abandoned all her progressives positions early. I’m no political consultant, but I think thats usually not the best method to win over progressives. I dont think she planned on progressive support-- I think someone told her she could win some republicans and never have to talk to a progressives ever again.
Backing a genocide and pretending like people weren’t having financial issues just because the stock market was up didn’t help much.
She didn’t have any progressive stances, why were they supposed to be excited about her?
Harris was supposed to be the one who’d get the Progressives excited
Well whoever thought of that was clearly a moron
WEIRD! I KNOW Progressives and they LOVE Bombing Children and KEEPING the Status Quo! It’s so WEIRD they WOULDNT Vote for Harris!
Well, they must love bombing children since they worked so hard to keep Trump in.
are you talking about progressives or centrists, dagwood?
When your choice is keeping the status quo, or everything getting a lot worse, that doesn’t seem to be a difficult choice.
Maybe the DNC should stop trying to run on the status quo instead of blaming the voters.
Americans want change, that’s how trump got elected, even the right wing doesn’t like the status quo. They don’t agree on the direction, but the status quo was not the move to make there, not when that includes US funded murder of children
The DNC can do far better, yes. But the voters can also do better. Thinking critically is an important part of participating in democracy.
As I said before the election, there was no option that did not include US funded murder of children. If Trump had been an outspoken opponent of the war in Gaza, (and we had any reason to believe him) then I could see the argument. But that was not the case, was it?
I appreciate the pragmatism, and for what it’s worth, I agree with your logic but voters aren’t pragmatists. They engage emotionally, which is why reactionary movements thrive.
Republicans offered an identity rooted in tribalism, fueled by fear, anger, and even hatred. Yet even a hateful tribe is still a tribe. In an era of loneliness and division, the group that accepts you flaws and all holds a powerful advantage. The side effect? Politics becomes emotional, not intellectual.
And let’s be honest: It’s hard to blame voters for disengaging. First-past-the-post, ‘lesser of two evils’ voting is demotivational at its core.
When every election feels like damage control, idealism withers.
Agreed on all points. But rational thinking is necessary for a functioning democracy.
As you observe, that’s one reason we don’t have one.
Why would she have gotten progressives excited?
The question I ask is why people needed to be excited at all?
Trump was openly talking about aiding the Israelis plus stopping aid to Ukraine.
Apparently, people thought if they didn’t vote for Harris Trump wouldn’t win either.
So “AOC not even close” with 26% but Kamala Harris + Pete Buttigieg + Hakeem Jeffries + Cory Booker + Gavin Newsom = 22%. And that 26% has almost guaranteed the 8% of Crockett and the 12% of Sanders. So 26 + 12 + 8 = 46% but “not even close”.
I don’t know half the people you mentioned
They get a lot of AIPAC money for ads in their district. Outside of it they have no name.
well at least you own up to your ignorance, more than we can say for most.
Oh, the qurstion was rhetorical – the function was a relevancy check. The Hill may think all of those names are important but only half are making it out of the political wonkosphere.
(wonk is an mid 20th century word for nerd)
Was it fairly clear I was just being funny? I hoped so, I try not to tell jokes that actually need to be /s tagged.
Lemmy has grown a lot, and Poe’s law grows in effect the more Lemmy grows.
I will kill Poe’s law or die trying. I hate the idea that we share so little context as a culture that every joke needs a signpost. I fight it my way, but the real war will only be won when global society has enough shared culture for us to make each other laugh without honking a bike horn and giving an exaggerated full-body wink.
Edit: I know I’m being grandiose, you don’t gotta point it out
Nah. /s tag is a good call. Never saw one that looked out of place in use.
Comedians have been using the written word for eons. Some jokes don’t land when written, and the real solution wasn’t invented this decade.
My personal policy is that if the joke needs a laugh track, a rimshot, or any big sign that says “Joke” being waved, the joke doesn’t work.
Your theory seems so well thought out that I’m surprised to see it failing you.
The headline means “AOC is seen as the leader of the Dems and nobody is even close to her”.
The DNC chair is not usually an elected congressperson, and AOC is absolutely not looking for that job. They’re just talking about the person people think about as the leader.
Please, we need her.
Who’s the heel and when are they going to have a no-holds-barred cage match on PPV?
There is no more Democratic Party.
Weird. The party that claims to be “for the people” keeps putting centrists in charge. We’re ready for someone who is actually for the people!
Sadly I don’t think it’s possible to have a party “for the people” with only two parties. There’s too much pressure for both of them to champion the status quo.
Yes it is. If the part “for the people” turns out to be captured you drop it and get in an actual party for the people. Rinse and repeat as needed. There is a problem with political parties growing too old and becoming too institutionalized. But keeping them in power instead of giving them the boot is a choice made by the voters.
“Championing the status quo” is not how I would describe what Republicans are doing right now.
They’re definitely for the billionaire people.
Aren’t there primaries for the Dems?
Sort of, sometimes. They can and will heavily disadvantage candidates they dont like. Like when they gave Hillary the questions for debates beforehand but not to Bernie, and let hillary control the funding of races, including her own. And like when they cut new hampshire out of the primary results this year because the New Hampshire dems wouldnt move the date for the primary to when the dnc wanted. So sure you could vote in that primary, but nothing was done with the results. Straight to the garbage can with those ballots.
Russia says they have a democracy too, with votes and everything. Not saying we’re the same, but proving we have “democracy” by the fact that voting happens is not that firm of a thing. Its easily corrupted.
Voter turnout in primaries is pathetic. In 30 states, you have to be registered with the party - i.e.: give them your name and address for fund-raising purposes - to vote. This all works to bias primaries to ‘establishment’ candidates, or at least people well known among party apparatchiks. They are, theoretically, the best way to get progressives or populists into office, but practically, those progressives are fighting demographics and the general apathy of voters under 40.
The same phenomena that let MAGA take over the GOP keep the moderates in charge of the Dems. At least, until someone figures out how to motivate all the young internet revolutionaries to actually go and vote instead of memeing about how useless voting is.
You’re blaming the DNC for something that is controlled by each individual state.
Not really. I’m saying that the system discourages change. If there’s blame for the DNC, it’s that their message has constantly been something along the lines of “be reasonable & empathetic; improve the world through measured change” which tends to demoralize people who think the system is seriously fucked. That empowers the career politicians. GOP propaganda, at least for the last 50-or-so years, has been “More guns! More babies! No brown people!” which tends to attract passionate radicals.
The DNC in a nutshell. Absolute garbage.Okay, but the states decide if there are open primaries or not. The State is to blame for that, but it can be changed if made a state ballot measure.
That’s not really up for debate. It’s literally state law and dependent on the state. The DNC and GOP don’t decide that.
Is that not the second sentence in my original comment?
DNC: I am here for the working people-- from billionaires, all the way to millionaires.
From the business owners to the CEOs, the Democrats are here to hear you. All the people, white or tan, brown people of light complexion as long as they have a 401k and 10 million in assets they will LISTEN
Quickest way to mobilize the Democratic party is to threaten to put a progressive in charge
See David Hogg
See Bernie Sanders.
They learned their lesson with Obama. The funny thing is he’s not even a fucking leftist, the party is just so full of dinosaurs they think a modern centrist is a leftist.
I’m a European born American. Obama would be right wing politician in my country of birth.
The dinosaurs know they’re marching right, that’s where all the money is (for them).
With Obama they just learned how to take a somewhat progressive candidates and bend them into a moderate. It’s the same thing that happened with Kamala, although of course it’s hard to say if either were ever really progressive or if they just used that for votes and didn’t mind discarding it once they got pressured by the party and consultants.
Obama wasn’t even somewhat progressive before the Democratic Party. He was against gay marriage for a while.
Kamala was never progressive.
Yeah I definitely agree, both Kamala and Obama are candidates that acted progressive in their primaries but as soon as they eventually got the nomination they went towards the corporate Democrat establishment. My main question is whether they were progressive at some point but let themselves be changed by the establishment, consultants, and donors or if they never really cared that much to begin with. The end state is the same but the difference is important as it gives us insight into how much power the consultants and others have over candidates vs if they didn’t really care then it wouldn’t have taken much to change them.
Kamala was picked as VP because Dems thought she would get votes from the republicans who aren’t so MAGA. She’s on the conservative side of things: tough on crime as AG, opposed cannabis legalization (changed position later), opposed abolition of death penalty (flipped later), etc.
I’m not even sure it was as deep as that, IMO they shoo’d her in without any chalengers as she could legally use the Biden-Harris
bribesdonations they had already collected. Thats about the extent of their thinking.Forgot hard on incarcerated trans women…
Neither was Obama. Not long after he put a bow on the nomination, he voted for an expansive security bill. A lot of people were surprised, but not me.
plus his voting record pre-presidency was very conservative. they fabricated his progressive persona
In general, no. In terms of specific policies as an AG, there were some.
I’d say she’s a centrist, with some progressive policies and some regressive. Just my opinion obviously.
they’d rather lose to Trump for a third term than do that.
Controlled opposition
Buzzword catchphrase
It all makes sense when you realize who makes the cutoff for what they consider “people.”
I’m confused. Are you arguing that AOC is or isn’t for the people?
She absolutely is. Her nomination is the DNC’s nightmare.
Conservatives, they are putting conservatives in charge. Don’t be fooled by how republicans label themselves. They haven’t been conservative since before the turn of the century.
It’s DNC leadership that has taken up that mantle.
Ocasio-Cortez was far ahead of other listed Democrats. Coming in a distant second was close ally Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The pair recently went to various states with their Fighting Oligarchy tour. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) placed third in the survey with 8%.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris came in fourth with 6%. Following her was Pete Buttigieg with 5%, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) with 5%, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) with 4%, and California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) with 2%.
Why did they list the percentage for all of these people, but not for Bernie’s second place position?
That is a rhetorical question.
I was going to calculate his percentage but 26 + 26 + 22 + 8 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 2 is 98%. Did they lump Bernie in with ‘other’?
and California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) with 2%.
Looks like Newsom will be the candidate for 2028 then…
Crockett has suggested the major donors have lined up behind a straight white guy
The straightest consistently whitest guy up there is Bernie, just saying. I bet he’s never had a tan in his whole life.
As is tradition.
For the same reason they DIDN’T EVEN MENTION he was a candidate half the time the media mentioned the primaries were happening despite him being in 1st or second at those times.
The rich would never allow a President Sanders. They have too much to lose.
The survey they cite has Bernie at 12%, so I’m not sure what method they did to allow for more than 100% - maybe you could choose more than one answer?
Oh, the link underlining was subtle enough that I didn’t see it.
Yeah, they must have allowed for more than one for the numbers to add up.
She’s not the face of the Democratic Party
She’s the face of a completely new and different party that has nothing to do with old Democrats.
To me, I’ve been viewing the US as being governed under a one party state for a while … the Republicans and the Democrats form two halves of the same organization.
The US doesn’t need a third party
They need to form a new second opposition party because the old one morphed into the monstrous thing we have today.
The US needs a third, a fourth, a fifth and several more parties as viable alternatives.
They to drop any weird FPTP systems, this will allow new parties to come into play.
This would also end the ridiculous gerrymandering shit
Omg, I love you. I’ve been screaming this since CGPGrey’s videos about voting and alternatives to what we have. Getting that is gonna require all existing party members to be cool with a complete loss of power and an increase in the amount of work the have to do to keep their power or get elected.
It’ll take the states. However, there are already states trying to ban alternative voting methods.
Haha, thank you for your kind words!
As a Swede, the US election system has always seemed so backwards, even the fact that you have to register to vote is completely foreign to me.
And there’s no chance it can get one while $ is in American politics.
Yeah, no.
If no party can get to 270 electoral votes, the president is picked by the House of Representatives.
That means congress would need be flippped into third party majority first.
Splitting the left off only benefits the far right. Anyone who thinks otherwise is stuck in an echo chamber.
This is why stoy said the First Past the Post system needs to be dropped.
Which would require a constitutional amendment, meaning it’s a pipe dream.
Any time someone can’t tell the difference between centrists and fascists, I just have to assume that their stance is more about arguing than it is about a sincerely held ideology.
Pretty much, yeah.
Taking over the Democratic Party vs starting a new party is kinda like addressing climate change on Earth vs terraforming Mars.
The former sounds painful and bureaucratic while the latter sounds exciting and innovative.
But if you can’t fix the party or planet you’ve got, which has like 80% of the hard work done already, what hope do you have of doing a new thing from scratch?
One of the criticisms against the Democratic Party is that they aren’t particularly democratic. Party insiders and the wealthy hold far more power and practically pick the nominees.
Rather than compare them to the planet from which we were birthed, I would compare them to a shitty boyfriend we’re afraid to dump.
Or put another way, it’s time for the non-fascist party to realign ideologically as part of the Seventh Party Era
Fuck that.
Centrists/Republcian Lites don’t deserve to the party.
They are free to fight republicans over control of that shitshow.
One of the UK’s two parties has died and the other is in the process of killing itself. Two party duopolies can disintegrate, even under FPTP, we just have to hope that Left parties emerge, not just rebranded far-right ones.
The Democratic Party is just a vessel. It used to be the right wing (relative). Now it’s the left wing (relative). Bernie and AOC don’t really fit in with the Dems, but they can. Same with Manchin.
There was a time where I thought a Musk type could rally many behind a weird Libertarian version of the DNC or RNC and shift the landscape. But he just went hard fascist as soon as he publicly aligned with the right.
Are they… Still considering Harris for 2028??? What? Please god. Make it stop. Please.
It’s.
Her.
Turn.
“It’s my turn.” was everything wrong with Hillary’s campaign in a nut shell.
How the fuck are you able to make yourself look like an unhinged ego-maniac who just wants to be President for the sake of being President, when you’re running against Trump? That shouldn’t be possible.
How the fuck are you able to make yourself look like an unhinged ego-maniac who just wants to be President for the sake of being President, when you’re running against Trump?
This isn’t a problem of Trumpism, it’s a naturally occurring brainworm in Americans broadly speaking. Trump’s a nasty dim-witted freak, so watching him climb to the top of the pile we’ve been raised to believe was a meritocracy causes all sorts of cognitive dissonance. But everyone running for President (except maybe Mike Gravel) ends up looking like this. The thing that separates the Obamas and Trumps from the Hillarys and McCains is whether cheering for the unhinged ego-maniac feels fun or not.
She’s just the most recent candidate. The most recent candidates, and most recent Presidents and Vice Presidents are almost always in these sorts of lists, especially in the weeks and months following an election, before the next campaign starts.
Joe Biden was a favorite in these sorts of polls in 2015/16, despite saying he wouldn’t run, because he was just VP.
I pray to the gods you are correct. Save this comment for 2028
HRC
Take your up vote and go think about what you did.
Praise the lawd!
she’s got my vote
“Currently, there is no consensus on the face of the Democrat Party, as a majority of voters either give the title to AOC (26%) or simply say there is none (26%),” Co/efficient concluded.
Never heard of Co/efficient, but “Democrat Party” is a bit of a red flag. From mediabiasfactcheck:
FiveThirtyEight, an expert on measuring and rating pollster performance, has evaluated 20 polls by co/efficient, earning 0.7 stars for accuracy, indicating they are Mixed Factual by MBFC’s criteria. They also conclude that their polling moderately favors the Right with a score of -2.7, which equates to a Right-Center polling bias. In general, co/efficient is considered moderately accurate and demonstrates a right-leaning bias in polling.
MBFC gives The Guardian and Breitbart equivalent ratings for factuality, which is patently ridiculous
It’s not a reliable gauge of anything, and it’s harmful to trust its rankings
All of those sites are right-wing propaganda operations. Every single one of them.
Factual news is almost always going to be liberal biased. Sites like these encourage journalists to bias their news stories to the right for no good reason.
I’m surprised so many people are falling for this.
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
42
Wikipedia. Which says MBFC is unreliable and has a pro Israel bias.
9point6.
However, co/efficient also states that it provides research for mostly Republicans, such as Gregory Steube (R-FL)
Democrat Party
This “red flag” is meaningless to people broke the age of 50 or so. I am a Democrat. I vote for the candidate who is a Democrat. Obama was a Democrat.
I don’t have time to get pissy over the difference between the noun and the adjective. If that’s all the points they can score on us, they are welcome to them.
The review by 538 is a much more important judgement.
This “red flag” is meaningless to people broke the age of 50 or so. I am a Democrat. I vote for the candidate who is a Democrat. Obama was a Democrat.
I get it man. I’m over 50 too and my team is the White Sox. I support the White Sox no matter that. Whats important in sports is that you support the team of your home town. Sure they were the worst team in 2024 and not entertaining to watch. Doesnt matter.
Anyone who writes scathing articles of the sox pathetic performance in the newspaper is wrong and disloyal, and is missing the whole point of sports. Its not about celebrating human athleticism and competition in striving to to be the best a human can be, its about adherence and loyalty to the corporation who owns your local team.
The billionaire owner of the white sox himself, Jerry Reinsdorf told me this.
I think you missed the entire point of my statement, which, amusingly, proves my point.
The older generations get pissy about being called the “Democrat party” rather than “Democratic party,” which, to be fair, is the proper name. But it’s really a stupid thing to get worked up over.
The fact that you didn’t even realize that I we talking about such a silly little thing is reasonably good evidence that it is, in fact, irrelevant to modern democrats.
How does Media Bias Fact Check assess the work done by Fivethirtyeight that they do not have access to as fivethirtyeight does not publish it?
Also are we teally accepting Fivethirtyeight as a good source anymore?
Isn’t 538 mostly just an aggregator of other polls?
No, they had their own model that Nate Silver built every year he was there. IDK who took over after he left.
Regardless they were shuttered last month. Before the closure they removed Rassmussen for being “rightward biased” despite Rassmussen being more accurate in their predictions than fivethirtyeight
