Am on mobile, and at work so this won’t be very well formatted and I don’t have time to read your whole link.
I’m aware of what the DNC has historically done, particularly with Hillary and Biden, I even just stated as such in another comment.artin is talking about having nominees in races all up and down the ballot in the general election.
The investments we are making are designed to do both: win big this November and build a stronger party for the elections that follow.
Remember Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy? To have a nominee on every ballot, challenging the Republicans for every seat instead of giving up on some.
Your previous comment says DNC is spending all their cash and are bankrupt but your link says they’ve had they’re best fund raising year, without holding the Whitehouse, in party history. Also with small donor contributions up 77% (compared to large donor contributions only being up 30%). So at least from what I have gotten through, I don’t see how your link justifies your position (acknowledging that I haven’t read the whole thing yet).
I don’t care that Abdul almost lost the primary, because he didn’t lose it. That means the voters are now overcoming the big-money campaigns backed by groups like AIPAC to get better nominees on the ballot.
I didn’t say just go vote. I said talking without voting is a losing strategy. We can talk IRL with people all we want, but if we don’t back it up with votes then the establishment learns to pay lip service without action. We have to fire the status quo by voting them out. And yes, we have to talk amongst ourselves and our peers to get each other to vote.
I think it is important that Abdul almost lost because of stories like Francesca Hong who almost won. Money plays an outsized role in these elections and the money the DNC is spending is most definitely being focused on raising Establishment Democrat candidates. Sure they are raising money and contributions are up, but they are spending money faster than they are raising it to the point where they are in debt.
Spending money is important to increase influence. I think it’s a good thing to spend money to try and unseat Republicans. But when we hear stories of Establishment Dems getting endorsed by other Establishment Dems, like Gov Tony Evers endorsing David Crowley in Wisconsin or Gov Gretchen Whitmer endorsing Haley Stevens in Michigan, this comes with fundraising and financial contributions from the establishment. This comes with buying ads for the establishment pick. It is a signal from the DNC to the voter base to unify behind a preferred “electible” candidate.
Abdul’s victory is a good thing because it means that people can beat out money. It is also a cautionary tale of how far the Establishment Democrats will go to fight their progressive wing. They already know what the people want which is why Ken Martin released that anemic 2024 autopsy report that was clearly edited to omit key progressive issues.
I am disputing your original claim that it doesn’t matter what the DNC wants. It absolutely matters what they want when they are the ones running the races and influencing elections to get their preferred candidates theough the primaries. They are actively trying to direct the voters instead of listening to the what the voters want. The DNC is absolutely the biggest problem that leads to depressing voter turnout. My problem with your original claim is the idea that we can tell people to vote for who they like without talking about what the DNC is doing. The reason people don’t vote Democrat is directly a result of the DNC spending all their time and energy putting up terrible candidates.
To put it more simply, the Establishment Dems are attacking us. We ought to be defending ourselves.
Your original claim was to ignore what the DNC is doing and to stop talking about them because what they are doing does not matter. I am saying that people should focus on the DNC and continue to talk about what they are doing because they are the biggest obstacle to getting Democrats elected.
Am on mobile, and at work so this won’t be very well formatted and I don’t have time to read your whole link.
I’m aware of what the DNC has historically done, particularly with Hillary and Biden, I even just stated as such in another comment.artin is talking about having nominees in races all up and down the ballot in the general election.
Remember Howard Dean’s 50 State Strategy? To have a nominee on every ballot, challenging the Republicans for every seat instead of giving up on some.
Your previous comment says DNC is spending all their cash and are bankrupt but your link says they’ve had they’re best fund raising year, without holding the Whitehouse, in party history. Also with small donor contributions up 77% (compared to large donor contributions only being up 30%). So at least from what I have gotten through, I don’t see how your link justifies your position (acknowledging that I haven’t read the whole thing yet).
I don’t care that Abdul almost lost the primary, because he didn’t lose it. That means the voters are now overcoming the big-money campaigns backed by groups like AIPAC to get better nominees on the ballot.
I didn’t say just go vote. I said talking without voting is a losing strategy. We can talk IRL with people all we want, but if we don’t back it up with votes then the establishment learns to pay lip service without action. We have to fire the status quo by voting them out. And yes, we have to talk amongst ourselves and our peers to get each other to vote.
I think it is important that Abdul almost lost because of stories like Francesca Hong who almost won. Money plays an outsized role in these elections and the money the DNC is spending is most definitely being focused on raising Establishment Democrat candidates. Sure they are raising money and contributions are up, but they are spending money faster than they are raising it to the point where they are in debt.
Spending money is important to increase influence. I think it’s a good thing to spend money to try and unseat Republicans. But when we hear stories of Establishment Dems getting endorsed by other Establishment Dems, like Gov Tony Evers endorsing David Crowley in Wisconsin or Gov Gretchen Whitmer endorsing Haley Stevens in Michigan, this comes with fundraising and financial contributions from the establishment. This comes with buying ads for the establishment pick. It is a signal from the DNC to the voter base to unify behind a preferred “electible” candidate.
Abdul’s victory is a good thing because it means that people can beat out money. It is also a cautionary tale of how far the Establishment Democrats will go to fight their progressive wing. They already know what the people want which is why Ken Martin released that anemic 2024 autopsy report that was clearly edited to omit key progressive issues.
I am disputing your original claim that it doesn’t matter what the DNC wants. It absolutely matters what they want when they are the ones running the races and influencing elections to get their preferred candidates theough the primaries. They are actively trying to direct the voters instead of listening to the what the voters want. The DNC is absolutely the biggest problem that leads to depressing voter turnout. My problem with your original claim is the idea that we can tell people to vote for who they like without talking about what the DNC is doing. The reason people don’t vote Democrat is directly a result of the DNC spending all their time and energy putting up terrible candidates.
To put it more simply, the Establishment Dems are attacking us. We ought to be defending ourselves.
How is firing them in the primaries by electing a different nominee not defending ourselves? What other actions are you suggesting?
Your original claim was to ignore what the DNC is doing and to stop talking about them because what they are doing does not matter. I am saying that people should focus on the DNC and continue to talk about what they are doing because they are the biggest obstacle to getting Democrats elected.
ok, are you advocating for anything besides talking? Taking without voting doesn’t get results. I did clarify that I meant don’t just talk about them.