bOtH sIdEs R sAmE

Seattle’s current city attorney is a trump backing Republican who was elected all because Seattle at the time was too scared of a candidate who once talked about abolishing the police

Election results say otherwise

But she lost because voters were convinced she ran on that leftists policy. Whether she actually did doesn’t change the intentions of the voters.

This is another good example of leftist policies causing an election loss. Even in a place as blue as Seattle.

Friday’s proposal to permanently ban hemp THC comes after years of complaints from California’s licensed marijuana industry, which has claimed that it faces unfair competition from unregulated hemp companies. Marijuana companies face sky-high regulatory costs, especially in California, and can only sell their products through state-licensed retailers. Hemp companies, on the other hand, face almost no regulations and have historically been able to sell their intoxicating drugs almost anywhere, including liquor stores, grocery stores and online.

This disparity between the two industries has created pressure on governors like Newsom to protect their state-regulated cannabis companies.

This decision makes sense to me.

It’s weird that every time someone goes against Trump there is an effort to manufacture consent to hate those people.

It seems like every time someone goes after Trump there is a barrage of commenters online that all of a sudden have a lot of anger to express towards that person.

For example, Mueller, Garland, Cheney.

The timing an quantity of comments always makes it seem like brigading to manufacture consent to attack those people.

Votes are a metric to measure engagement. Which is valuable information

The comments on here don’t reflect those differences.

I see progressives on here everyday attacking democrats for fundraising.

Why is it that both Trump and progressives on lemmy want the DNC to not have fundraising?

Why do Democrats talk like they can win elections but then blame voters when they lose?

Because they’ve won the majority of elections in the last 3 decades. They arent blaming voters when they lose. The voters that voted democrat are blaming leftists for not voting and getting Trump elected.

And to be honest, I don’t really even follow your post. Are Democrats not progressives? Are we agreeing that they are center right and that their base isn’t really motivated to vote for that?

Democrats have been moving left since Obama. Leftist didn’t show up to vote this elections because of Gaza so they got Trump elected. So now democrats need to cater to the right to increase voter turnout.

Why is it that progressives consistently lose elections but talk like they know how to win elections?

If progressives know how to win better than democrats why do they keep losing elections?

We are in an echo chamber. Downvotes on lemmy do not reflect a real world consensus on opinions.

Literally anyone can run in a closed primary. A closed primary means that only registered members of the party can vote in the primary.

Winning the primary decides whether or not someone can run as a candidate in the general election. Either you need that explained because you don’t know anything about primaries or you are pretending to not understand what you’re reading.

There are only 15 states that hold closed primaries. I live in a state with open primaries, and I’m repped by Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren, and Ayanna Pressley. Not exactly a bunch of secret conservatives, is it?

Your reading comprehension is failing you again. Having no vetting process doesn’t guarentee the candidate is a “secret conservative” it just increases the chances of it happening. I’m surprised I need to explain that again.

It isn’t. Sit down, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

vetting noun [ U ] US /ˈvet.ɪŋ/ UK /ˈvet.ɪŋ/ the action of examining someone or something carefully to make certain that they are or it is acceptable or suitable for something

It’s literally the definition of what they are doing with closed primaries. Why does that need to be explained to you?

And giving people the choice between center right and far-right doesn’t motivate voters.

That choice was made by the voters.

LOL, how do you think letting anyone run as a candidate without vetting them will turn out?

Absolutely any bad actor will be able to run without intervention. The floodgates would be open. Which is probably what the bad actors calling for open primaries want.

Also, closed primaries don’t add any more vetting. They just mean that the only people who get to vote in the primaries are party members.

This is the definition of vetting. lol

Nah, they just cater to their corporate donors and folks that would never vote for them.

Because of Citizens United, this is a necessary evil. You either get donors or you lose from lack of funding.

Look at the progressives that lost recently because AIPAC out funded their competition.

Voters had to chose between two candidates, one on the left and one on the right. Voters chose the one on the right. Meaning not enough leftist showed up to vote.

Leftist don’t show up to vote > voters chose the option furthest right > leftists learn nothing, blame democrats and do it again next cycle.

This is why leftist keep losing elections and their legislation doesn’t get passed. They refuse to work with other ideologies and they don’t have enough voters to accomplish anything alone.

Democratic Party is made up of people the voters chose. Many of whom are moderate.

If leftists can’t get enough voters to change that, it won’t change.

Politicians don’t cater to groups that don’t vote.

They need to start poking bears. Use the laws even if outnumbered. Show force; show pressure.

These words mean nothing. They are not a strategy or a plan or even coherent.

You’re avoiding the fact that in a democracy, you need enough votes to make things happen.

Tell us what is happening. Get the word out. We can’t help if all we hear is what has happened.

We know what’s happening. That’s why we are having this conversation.

The rules have changed and democrats are still using a textbook from 1990.

What rules have changed? Republicans are breaking the rules by performing a coup. To even imply that democrats should do the same thing as republicans shows you’re arguing in bad faith.

And how will removing the vetting process impact the amount of candidates we get like Fetterman? It will increase them.

The primaries are where the party platform is shifted. It’s how the Republicans got first the Tea Party and then MAGA.

Which is why we need the DNC to vet candidates as much as possible. So we don’t end up getting some democrat version of Trump through open primaries.