• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Interesting myth.

    No. Democrats have had a winning coalition that they refuse to lead with, which has cost them the advantage in 4 years elections since Obama.

    Democrats have winning politics that they refuse to engage in at the head of the party, and instead lead with corporate pay to play politics.

    The only people beating Democrats in elections since Obama is themselves.

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      which has cost them the advantage in 4 years elections since Obama

      Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re trying to say here because this sounds incomprehensibly stupid, but just in case… There have been exactly two presidential elections since Obama. Democrats won one and lost the other. Everything else is involves a multitude of candidates voted in strictly at the state or district level.

    • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The electoral college and 2 senators per state gives the Republicans a huge advantage.

      2 of the last 3 Republican presidential election “wins” lost the popular vote.

      Cornfields, prairie, and deserts have as much representation as NYC and LA.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        You are just making wrong assumptions about the people that live in those places. Progressive policies are INCREDIBLY (poll at +80%) in those places.

        A strong progressive, Tim Walz, won a rural, cornfield-prarie-desert, district on those policies.