thing that really clicked all this to me is thinking on how seniority is prioritized in dems, you gotta be around for a long time to be in leadership. so the most likely people to be in leadership are in can't-lose districts. so no matter what happens 1. they don't lose 2. they're still in charge
sigh yeah its such a bummer that 2008 looked like it had the potential to dislodge this inertia and depose a loser faction and instead decided to put them back in charge
I knew it wouldn't when I saw Democrats vote with Republicans to defend ACORN.
that was so unbelievably stupid
an underspoken and mostly forgotten conflict that i think speaks very well to the actual perspective of the people running the party is the insistence they had on taking howard dean out as chair for the DNC and putting clinton's boy tim kaine in there, AFTER the 50 state strategy did great for them
like they wouldn't even let a guy who wasn't even all that left do the nitty gritty boring fundamentals shit that actually helps them win in the first place because he didn't kiss the ring enough and rahm emmanuel didn't like him. petty ass bitches!
egg zacky, they would rather lose than not be the ones running the internals
i keep types like dean and markey in mind a lot because whenever someone wants to go on about lefties, their unrealistic unicorn demands, their purity tests, i can just go "bro forget my commie ass, the party leadership doesn't even listen to howard dean and ed markey."
dean was just treating healthcare seriously before it was allowed
they don't even fucking like mayor boy and that soulless nerd would do whatever they wanted!
sure the dems as a party got blown the fuck out in 2010. but did it affect the people in the can't lose districts, who decide the direction of the party in the first place? no it did not!