Do you think “change” is the only important thing there? People want good change, and many know what that looks like. They didn’t have to compete against Trump’s marketting of the same concept, they just needed to finally grow a spine and do the things people have been pleading for for years.
They did fail, obviously, in large part because they took too long to ditch the incumbent and didn’t do enough to distance their new candidate from him.
“History” would seem to suggest that we’re in for another go around the cycle of fascist ascendancy and collapse, and that the Democrats might have had a chance if they ran a primary instead of letting Biden hog the candidacy 'til it was too late to switch.
Do you think “change” is the only important thing there? People want good change, and many know what that looks like. They didn’t have to compete against Trump’s marketting of the same concept, they just needed to finally grow a spine and do the things people have been pleading for for years.
It’s a two party system and the Democrats were somewhat in charge (Senate and Presidency).
Admitting to being the change strategy is the same as saying Democrats have failed.
The incumbent cannot run on change. The incumbent runs on status quo. You can run on change for 2026 and 2028.
They did fail, obviously, in large part because they took too long to ditch the incumbent and didn’t do enough to distance their new candidate from him.
Name a time in all of US History where the party in charge ditched the incumbent and still won the election.
Go on. History is on my side on this matter. The election was lost the moment y’all ditched Biden and gave up on your best chance.
https://abcnews.go.com/538/democrats-incumbent-parties-lost-elections-world/story?id=115972068
“History” would seem to suggest that we’re in for another go around the cycle of fascist ascendancy and collapse, and that the Democrats might have had a chance if they ran a primary instead of letting Biden hog the candidacy 'til it was too late to switch.