pingveno

So based on your 38 days, that would be March 12th (2020-02-03 + 38 days), no? And Biden was indeed declared the winner on a March 12th, but that was in 2024. It took until April 8, 2020 for Bernie to decide to drop out.

Bernie Sanders won 3 out of 5 primaries that occurred before the DNC called it for Biden in 2020 with Buttigeg picking up 1 other.

I'm not sure how to parse what you're saying. As far as DNC rules are concerned, they "call" it once all primary races are held.

In 2016 Sanders won 23 races and was at 43% of the popular vote despite extreme pushback by the DNC. He was democratically supported cause he had people voting for him. Democratically.

The Democratic primary uses proportional representation, so candidates don't win states, they win delegates. Hillary Clinton got 55% of the popular vote, Bernie Sanders got 43%. There are no two ways to slice it, Bernie lost that election by the rules of a democratic election by a sizeable margin. Meanwhile, Hillary was dealing with getting hacked and Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi. And you're forgetting the often adoring coverage that was played to audiences on the left about Sanders.

The selling point for Kamala wasn't anything in particular about her. She's the VP and was the only obvious choice. There was no appetite for a contested convention, which was the alternative. It was always going to be an uphill battle, so in a sense she's also a sacrificial lamb.

If you're referencing Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, he wasn't "democratically popular" in either race. That simply is not supported by polling or election results. He was well behind Clinton by all metrics. Then in 2020, he was briefly "winning" because several similar candidates were splitting the center-left lane. The moment the center-left lane narrowed, Sanders' lead evaporated.

It's SOP for candidates to more or less clear the field for an incumbent president. This is partially because of a perceived effect from a strong primary challenger weakening an incumbent. So Democrats were just doing what both parties have been doing for the last half century.

The change from Biden was in response to clear reactions from the US electorate. The electorate saw Biden's debate performance and was not impressed. There wasn't time to run a process, so Kamala was the obvious choice given a non-ideal situation. But the electorate got what it wanted in terms of an option that wasn't elderly.

During the Trump presidency, I read a book entitled "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45". In it, a journalist gives an account of his interviews with people who had been rank-and-file members of the Nazi Party in Nazi Germany. It really is remarkable what similarities there are.

There are some things that I think will keep the US safe, at least for now. One is that Trump himself is old and will slow down soon. The other thing is that Hitler came to power against democratic institutions that were much, much weaker and younger than what the US has. The Weimar Republic had been established just 15 years prior, whereas the US has had a continuous government for nearly 250 years.

Trump or anyone trying to follow in his stead simply has a lot more in their way. Of course, that's no reason for complacency.

The inflation will be yuge!

I was really frustrated with my state legislature in Oregon. They put ranked choice on the ballot this year, but it was poorly written. These things are hard to revisit once passed, so I eventually decided to vote it down. Hopefully they'll put it on in 2 or 4 years, but better written.

The only people who had those pagers were Hezbollah members. Hezbollah has been lobbing missiles into Israel, killing civilians including children and forcing an evacuation. They picked a fight, why should there be an expectation that Israel just sits back and takes it? Don't get me wrong about Gaza, they have gone way too far there. But Hezbollah seems at least somewhat justified.

A lot of what you're listing off is more a symptom of Harris entering the race so late. She's barely had the time to put together a campaign, let alone flesh out a real policy platform. That usually takes a long time, especially given that she has to show some level of independence from Biden while also

no healthcare reform mostly just give aways to insurance companies through tax credits.

What type of healthcare reform are you referring to? I don't think that anything terribly drastic is really going to happen within the foreseeable future. The Democrats burned a 60-40 majority in the Senate just to get the ACA, a relatively modest reform, through Congress. Something like single payer does poll well... until you remind people that there's no free lunch.

no minimum wage increase

She supports an increase to $15/hour, but that was pretty recent.

wont commit to keeping kahn the most effective FTC chair in more than 4 decades.

I won't defend her here, she should have the courage to tell her tech allies that she's not going to topple Kahn.

wont commit to supporting striking workers.

I'm not exactly sure what this means. The Biden administration has strengthened labor's hand on the NLRB, which marked a significant difference from the Trump administration. Are you referring to the railroad strike of 2022?

no mandated PTO/Sick leave for workers.

What left wing people are really telling you:

I would be fine if that was what everyone was actually saying, but I hear a lot of people encouraging not voting or voting third party this cycle.

let your reps know that your vote is at risk if the genocide continues post election. and then follow through in the next cycle.

Politicians are trying to paste together a winning coalition. That's why you'll see Kamala's platform roughly representing the center-left, that is a winning platform for a general election. The problem with having a hard line non-mainstream view on something like the Israel-Palestine conflict is that playing hard to get will only get you so far. If your opinion isn't supported by the majority, it's very, very hard to get a politician's support.

In the context of the US, it most certainly is. Other places, maybe not so much.

There are also some great ways to get written off by the Democratic Party. Frequently not voting or voting third party makes for an unreliable constituency. No politician is going to pay a group that plays hard to get much heed. But for a constituency that turns out and works to turn out others, they're going to be all ears. There's a reason causes championed by Black women always feature fairly heavily in the Democratic Party platform. They really punch above their weight.

All politicians meet with lobbyists. It's hard to get a handle on the needs of the nation (or state, or so on), and lobbying is how people inform their representatives of that need. Now whether those lobbyists are scumbags or saints, that's a different question.

I've heard it's also fairly easy to do security for.