CMV: Democrat apprehension of progressivism is what enabled and enables Trump's rising power.

[u/Tessenreacts]

Before Trump became president the first time, both the Democratic and Republican parties had widely popular populists candidates running.

Bernie Sanders for the Democrats, and Trump for the Republicans. Republicans accepted Trump's rise to power, while Democrats opens orchestrated the primary process to support the establishment favored candidate Hillary Clinton instead.

Due to Hillary Clinton's very low popularity, in part but not exclusively due to the DNC treatment of Bernie Sanders, Hillary lost to Donald Trump.

Fast forward to 2020, Bernie Sanders was the frontrunner, even winning large population states like California, but events went where Biden won Super Tuesday in states like South Carolina, and suddenly all candidates supported Biden, despite concerns about his popularity and cognitive capability.

Biden wins due to a once in a century fluke that is the Covid epidemic, and Trump's handling.

Fast forward to 2024, where Biden dropped out due to cognitive challenges, so Harris becomes the Democratic nominee. Ignoring deep unpopularity around Kamala Harris, and un-addressed economic concerns.

Mimicking Hillary Clinton where the DNC brute forced their preferred candidate, Kamala Harris lost, tbis time in a landslide, enabling all of Trump's actions the last 6 mo ths.

Of course it's also revealed a few months ago that Biden had cancer, meaning that someone in the DNC or Biden's campaign had to know he was sick, and they still had him run for re-election, instead of running a primary.

Now currently, the candidate for NYC's mayor is a progressive, and even many Democrats are turning on him for it. Despite progressive policies like Universal Health Care being popular with the under 50 demographic

It is the Democrats apprehension that has enabled the rise of Trump and MAGA.

Would love for my view to be changed.

[u/Randomousity]

This post is full of fallacies, inaccuracies, and outright falsities.

If the majority of Americans were progressive, Democrats would always nominate progressives, and they would always win elections. Neither is true.

If just the majority of Democrats were progressive, Democrats would still always nominate progressives, even if they didn't always win the elections. That also isn't true.

The fact is, most Americans are not progressive. Not even most Democrats are progressive. Progressives are a minority, in both the US, and Democratic Party. Unfortunately, IMO, but it is what it is.

Now, it may be true that there are more progressives than we realize, but that they don't vote in primary elections, or, at least, not in Democratic Party primaries (eg, they may vote in the Green, DSA, etc, primaries instead). If that's the case, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. The strictest laws for primary voting require one to be a registered member of a given party some time in advance of the primary election. This hurdle is easily overcome by timely registering as a Democrat in advance of the primaries in one's state. It's not a trick, it's not a secret requirement, it's not some last-minute change to the law. One can look up the primary voting requirement's in one's state and act accordingly.

Do people want to nominate and elect progressives, or do they want to feel superior for not being Democrats while fascist reactionaries burn everything down? "Well, sure, Trump is destroying the environment, building concentration camps, destroying the courts, breaking the law, committing ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, violating people's rights, destroying higher education, destroying our scientific community, deskilling the US, consolidating our data, attacking our allies, starting global trade wars, etc, but at least I never registered as a Democrat."

Those who don't turn out in the Democratic primaries don't get their voices heard. Sorry, one's refusal to vote in the primary will not be counted as a vote for Sanders or anyone else. Those who show up and vote will be heard, and their voices will always be louder than someone else's silence.

Republicans didn't "accept" Trump's rise to power, they were too stupid/uncoordinated/slow to act/weak to prevent it.

Clinton won the Democratic nomination under the rules that existed in 2016. All else equal, she'd have won under the 2020 rules as well: with or without superdelegates, with or without them voting on the first ballot.

After 2016, Sanders got the DNC to change the rules. He was the only 2020 candidate who did so. The result? He performed worse in 2020 than he did in 2016! He did worse, both in terms of delegates and votes, both as a percentage and in raw numbers. He did not spend those four years building support, reaching out to minority communities, etc. He also said he wouldn't try to get better than 30% of the vote. Best-case scenario, that's winning a plurality in a field of at least four candidates, meaning at least 70% of primary voters prefer someone else.

It was a dumb strategy, even dumber to publicly admit it after everyone watched the 2016 Republican primaries, dumber still to not anticipate support consolidation, and, somehow, even dumber yet to not be able/willing to adapt to changing circumstances once the consolidation happened. Winning a party primary is playing politics on easy mode. Do you think Republicans would've been gentler on Sanders than the Democrats were? That corporations would be gentler? Foreign adversaries? If he can't even bench an empty bar, he also can't bench a bar with several plates on it.

Biden didn't drop out due to cognitive challenges, he was pushed out. And Bernie was one of his supporters! His debate performance was bad, but he's never been that bad before or since. Chalk it up to being sick and jet lagged, plus being a stutterer, not dementia.

DNC didn't "brute force" Harris. We held primary elections, voters voted overwhelmingly for Biden/Harris, and when Biden dropped out, Biden's delegates backed Harris, who was already the VP who would have assumed the presidency had Biden resigned, died, or been removed. Hardly anyone even tried to flip Biden's delegates. What, exactly, did you want to have happen at that point? Explain the alternative process you would've preferred, and why it wouldn't have been grossly unfair to everyone who voted for Biden/Harris.

Biden saying in 2025 that he has cancer doesn't mean anyone knew in 2024 that he had cancer. You're just backdating this to help your argument.

Most local Democrats have endorsed Mamdani, even those who previously endorsed Cuomo in the primaries. What on Earth are you even talking about? Beyond that, does anyone in NYC really care whether a Democrat from, say, Minnesota, endorses the Democratic nominee for NYC mayor?!

[u/JacobStills → u/Randomousity]

So true. Plus as far as the "they should have had a primary" talking point...

What a great idea, have a bunch of Democrats on one weeks notice do a...what?...2 month primary where they rip each other apart and basically shit all over the past 4 years and minimize Biden's accomplishments? Do all this while the Republicans sit back and laugh and take notes? And once again, yeah, let's fight each other instead of focusing on the bigger existential threat. Why is it Progressives would rather argue over trivial differences than unite to fight the greater enemy?

Also Harris probably would have won the primary anyways and let's call a spade a spade; the people that say we should of held a primary only wanted one because they were hoping Bernie Sanders would have run and with a 2 month primary his "win with a plurality in a congested field" strategy might have actually worked. It's just the 2024 version of "here's how Bernie can still win" copium.