• assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I don’t understand your point. Of course the candidate with more votes wins. If more of the voters pick establishment Democrats, then that’s who wins.

    If moderates need to earn the votes of progressives, then progressives also need to earn the votes of moderates. If more voters are going with moderates, then the progressive candidate needs to do more to earn their vote.

    For as much as this is harped about with Biden and establishment Democrats, I’m surprised the corollary isn’t obvious to people. The progressive candidate does not automatically deserve votes by the virtue of being progressive.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’re confusing the primaries with the general election. If democrats want to win the general election consistently, they need to pick better candidates, not just ones that the party favors. If a progressive won the primary, do you think democrats would not vote for them? Democrats learned the wrong lessons from 2008, 2016, and even 2020.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        No my point is that the better candidates are those that win the primaries. They need to win votes for that to happen. The DNC could throw their weight behind them to help, but they still need to win the majority in the primary. And requires a broad appeal.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Again, party primaries, which have way too much influence from the party, do not test for better candidates. You talk about broad appeal, but both trump and clinton had less than 50% approval during the election of 2016.