Agreed. But I'm not going to publicly endorse a dead-end DNC loser before it's necessary. The DNC needs to act like people aren't required to vote for them and field a candidate that can actually win votes.

On the other hand, this is a fine time for this conversation. We do have roughly a year to find a candidate that's not fucking Newsom just because he could meme for a minute.

I don't mind a few memes in our politics, but I do want there to be some kind of substance under the memes. And not the substance Magats have found under theirs, 💩.

I will never understand the mentality of choosing that hill to die on...

I think it only makes sense if they're lying about their beliefs and wanted trump to win.

I forgot a ton of things. 

AI, your data privacy, your parents retirement, NATO, electric cars, green energy, antitrust, the chip shortage. 

There’s a huge list. 

And how is not voting for them going to do that? They're fine with you not voting for them, and even losing in the case of DNC leadership. Always have been.

You want to put pressure on them? Be the candidate to primary the party line candidate in Democratic primaries. Yes they will use every structural advantage they have against you. But if enough people do it constantly. The cracks will widen and show. Otherwise they're happy to receive donations and funding from the wealthy, even if they don't win.

To be clear, I think all national parties should be outlawed. Generally state wide ones as well. But unless you can change the political reality we are in. The only possibility is not just holding off the worst possible candidates such as trump. Though more should have shown solidarity against him. But being the candidates we want to vote for. And not letting some uninterested complacent national organization make those decision for us.

The majority of eligible voters already don't vote. Low voter turnout does not embarrass the rich and powerful, it just makes the system easier to control. Fewer voters means fewer people to answer to, fewer people to influence, and fewer people to shuffle around through gerrymandering.

For fuck sake, they are consistently trying to make it harder for people to vote. They want lower turnout. They know their most loyal supporters will still vote. They'd much rather have their base be the only ones bothering to show up to the polls. They don't care about legitimacy, they care about winning.

Every time you vote, you are granting the rich permission to continue to fuck you regardless of who you voted for.

And do you think that, by refraining from voting, you would somehow deny the rich that permission? That's probably why all the openly corrupt, unapologetically authoritarian politicians go out of their way to ensure everyone is able to cast a ballot, right? Because they know that, the more people vote, the more permission the rich will have to fuck everyone. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for your enlightened contribution here.

Gaza would have been worse, because Netanyahu would have kept up the bombing.

However, Kamala would never have defunded USAID, so those million and a half people who are dying right now from starvation and disease would be alive.

So, honestly, not voting for Kamala was a bad idea.

But it's still because of the DNC corporate donors that Trump is in office right now, because they refuse to allow the people a progressive alternative.

Blame is pointless. I am talking about what needs to change. Shouting at reluctant third party voters will do nothing but raise your blood pressure.

Campaigning for the downfall of Chuck Schumer, there's a worthy cause.

I think the argument is that voting for status quo candidates aren't actually getting us those things, either. And any small incremental gains are quickly reverted the next time republicans are in power.

And you can only believe that if you ignore every bit of progress that has stuck around in the last thirty years.

Progress isn’t a straight line up. Like anything else it dips and wobbles. But it consistently moves upward.

Yeah there are always going to be things to make progress on. But to pretend that we are not in a better place on some of those issues now than we were thirty years ago is bafflingly silly.

As an example: In 1996, support for same-sex marriage was so low that congress passed and Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, allowing states to ignore same-sex marriage licenses from other states in direct violation of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, and this was widely supported by the American people. In 2023, over 70% of Americans supported gay marriage while only 22% opposed. That number has dipped since, but not by much. In 2025, it was 68% support (88% of Democrats, 76% of Independents, and 41% of Republicans) while 29% opposed it.

That is an issue on which the American people have made significant progress. That progress hasn’t evaporated with alternating administrations. It ebbs and flows like literally everything, but over time it has improved.

Most are like this. Not all! Certainly some things consistently get worse, like wealth inequality. But to act like everything simply flip-flops between parties and that the Democrats are simply a ratchet that maintains the status quo and doesn’t let anything change just to let the next Republican make it worse is flat-out wrong.

Are Democrats largely spineless corporate shills? Yeah. But are they just as bad as Republicans? Fuck no. Go vote in primaries. Support candidates who will actually push for change. Giving up is pathetic.

But you can bet when they lose they'll blame everyone else in the room but themselves. I don't think the neo-liberals of the party realize how much bad blood they've been generating.