To extend a bit, the DNC controls the machine to run elections. They are friends with the corporate donors and the “left wing” media. Without their support it’s very hard to brand yourself as a full blown democrat candidate, which eventually will matter to the voting public.
control of corporate donors and the media makes the DNC extremely strong
You seem to be a bad listener, because you got it backwards. The DNC doesn’t have control over corporate donors and the media, corporate donors and the media have control over the DNC. They’re not actually weak, their supposed incompetence is a choice. They’re not actually incapable of winning elections and passing good policy that helps the people, they’re unwilling. The interests of the Democratic leadership and the interests of the people are misaligned, and they only appear weak because they misrepresent their values and goals.
The only answer is mass movements. If you can’t beat them with money you have to beat them with numbers. We have to continue the slow process of building dual power from the bottom up by engaging in mutual aid and taking into our own hands what the Democrats refuse to.
Money is power in this country, but at its core it’s only an abstraction of labor power. Unions can win elections and even run their own social programs if only more people choose to fight. Existing unions need to radicalize and more radical unions need to form.
Multiple progressives lost their primaries recently and blame AIPAC funding. Criticizing democrats for catering to donors. While losing to democrats because they catered to donors.
All while claiming they can win elections better than democrats.
Progressives will continue to lose until they give up their morals and descend into the muck of incompetence and greed like us fine fellows, and take the big money dick that is being offered. You’d be stupid to try any other way of winning.
Progressives will continue to lose because they think they don’t need to work with ideologies other than their own in a country where progressives are a small fraction of the population.
‘Don’t try to appeal to moderate voters! Why can’t we win elections?!’
‘Don’t compromise with republicans to get the votes needed to pass legislation! Why can’t we get legislation passed?!’
‘Is is us progressives that are to blame for our lack of progress? No it is the voters that are wrong!’
If the strategy of compromising with the right, appealing to moderate voters, and sucking up to corporate donors is so effective, why did it fail miserably at stopping the fall to fascism? Are you of the same mind as the Democratic leadership, that Kamala Harris ran a perfect campaign?
You’re making the same mistake that right-wingers make, blaming the powerless for the actions of the powerful.
I’m not saying what is good/bad. I’m saying what wins/loses. You can be good and lose in the case of progressives. But then you can’t claim you know how to win better than the DNC.
Well, it’s a good thing we ran so fucking far to the right, then. Can you imagine if Harris had listened to progressives? She might have lost the primary we didn’t fucking have.
She lost to Trump because she did what you wanted. Don’t worry. The party will never fucking change.
You’re putting words in my mouth in order to change the subject to one you’re more comfortable with. In this case, the subject you’re more comfortable with is gloating that AIPAC bought you some pro-genocide primary challengers.
The subject is: “why do progressives think they know how to win elections better than the DNC if they have never done so?”
To which I provided an explanation. They cannot win elections that the party makes certain they can’t run in. Now enjoy the results of the party’s recalcitrance.
This implies a fair primary process.
To extend a bit, the DNC controls the machine to run elections. They are friends with the corporate donors and the “left wing” media. Without their support it’s very hard to brand yourself as a full blown democrat candidate, which eventually will matter to the voting public.
How did any progressives get elected if our primaries are unfair?
How do progressives win against the GOP when they don’t play fair?
According to leftists, control of corporate donors and the media makes the DNC extremely strong. But simultaneously, the DNC is extremely weak.
You seem to be a bad listener, because you got it backwards. The DNC doesn’t have control over corporate donors and the media, corporate donors and the media have control over the DNC. They’re not actually weak, their supposed incompetence is a choice. They’re not actually incapable of winning elections and passing good policy that helps the people, they’re unwilling. The interests of the Democratic leadership and the interests of the people are misaligned, and they only appear weak because they misrepresent their values and goals.
Ok, so if leftists can’t win a primary because they have no support from donors and media, then how are they supposed to win a general election?
The only answer is mass movements. If you can’t beat them with money you have to beat them with numbers. We have to continue the slow process of building dual power from the bottom up by engaging in mutual aid and taking into our own hands what the Democrats refuse to.
Money is power in this country, but at its core it’s only an abstraction of labor power. Unions can win elections and even run their own social programs if only more people choose to fight. Existing unions need to radicalize and more radical unions need to form.
If mass movements can win a general election then they can win a primary.
Conversely, if leftists aren’t yet winning primaries with mass movements, then they can’t yet win general elections.
They got elected despite the party’s interference.
The GOP doesn’t control national elections like the DNC/DCCC/DSCC controls primaries.
Multiple progressives lost their primaries recently and blame AIPAC funding. Criticizing democrats for catering to donors. While losing to democrats because they catered to donors.
All while claiming they can win elections better than democrats.
The GOP will also be catering to donors.
Yes, money is power and power is politics. What is your point exactly?
Progressives will continue to lose for this reason.
Progressives will continue to lose until they give up their morals and descend into the muck of incompetence and greed like us fine fellows, and take the big money dick that is being offered. You’d be stupid to try any other way of winning.
I am very smart.
Progressives will continue to lose because they think they don’t need to work with ideologies other than their own in a country where progressives are a small fraction of the population.
‘Don’t try to appeal to moderate voters! Why can’t we win elections?!’
‘Don’t compromise with republicans to get the votes needed to pass legislation! Why can’t we get legislation passed?!’
‘Is is us progressives that are to blame for our lack of progress? No it is the voters that are wrong!’
‘We are very smart’
If the strategy of compromising with the right, appealing to moderate voters, and sucking up to corporate donors is so effective, why did it fail miserably at stopping the fall to fascism? Are you of the same mind as the Democratic leadership, that Kamala Harris ran a perfect campaign?
You’re making the same mistake that right-wingers make, blaming the powerless for the actions of the powerful.
Clearly the solution is just to sell out as hard as possible since there’s no other way to win.
I’m not saying what is good/bad. I’m saying what wins/loses. You can be good and lose in the case of progressives. But then you can’t claim you know how to win better than the DNC.
Well, it’s a good thing we ran so fucking far to the right, then. Can you imagine if Harris had listened to progressives? She might have lost the primary we didn’t fucking have.
She lost to Trump because she did what you wanted. Don’t worry. The party will never fucking change.
I was talking about the way the party runs (or eschews) its primaries. You pivoted to international donors.
I’m talking about winning and losing primaries. You’re cherry picking examples.
This is what you initially responded to:
You’re putting words in my mouth in order to change the subject to one you’re more comfortable with. In this case, the subject you’re more comfortable with is gloating that AIPAC bought you some pro-genocide primary challengers.
This is my comment that preceded your quote.
The subject is: “why do progressives think they know how to win elections better than the DNC if they have never done so?”
To which I provided an explanation. They cannot win elections that the party makes certain they can’t run in. Now enjoy the results of the party’s recalcitrance.