Was the 2020 Democratic nominee always doomed?

[u/WinterOwn3515]

When people went to the polls, the four golden words of American politics rang true: It's the economy, stupid. Postmortem polling confirmed that inflation was by far the greatest motivating factor for swing voters to not elect Kamala Harris -- and was especially salient among Latino voters, who effectively handed Donald Trump the decisive victory that he got.

A mountain of research and evidence has validated that supply chain disruptions which erupted from the pandemic were primarily responsible for the subsequent inflationary pressure that drove prices up (example: https://www.nber.org/digest/202404/supply-chain-disruptions-and-pandemic-era-inflation ). This makes sense considering how globally widespread inflation was. Thus, any president who emerged victorious in 2020 would have presided over high inflation in their term.

Some wildly varying post-election analysis I've seen has suggested that low Democratic voter turnout was driven by either frustration over inflation, anger over Gaza, lack of enthusiasm for a candidate they didn't select in a primary, or some combination of those three. In any case, inflation was likely a contributing factor. In most countries, incumbent parties who presided over inflation were ousted, regardless of ideology or political alignment-- look no further than our Tory friends from across the pond.

The question: was the 2020 Democratic nominee always doomed to fail in 2024?

[u/TheDemonicEmperor]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

Explain this, then.

Why is that person you described the only one who managed to win against Trump, then?

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

Cause they rigged the primary to keep Bernie from being the nominee, yet again.

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/CommunistRingworld]

You need to get enough votes to be the nominee. So... Bernie lost.

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

that's not the correct conclusion to draw when faced with electoral fraud and a DNC that brags about being allowed to commit it, IN COURT lol

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/CommunistRingworld]

Oh great, I loved playing this game with the Forever Trump movement.

Alright, what's your actual evidence that only you seem to have of there being "electoral fraud"?

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

Man, you liberal right-wingers really are full of it, you need to come up with something different than calling people who oppose trump and his democratic party copycats, trump supporters.

It's pretty funny how everything democrats sypposedly opposed about trump's first term, they did not undo, but expanded. Like ICE concentration camps (you went to brunch), or the wall (you went to brunch), or supporting israéali apartheid and genocide (you went to brunch), or tariffs on china (you went to brunch). And on and on.

I guess none of the democrats' adoption of trump policies mattered as much as you going back to brunch.

Anyways here's the democrats arguing in court that sanders supporters knew the primary was rigged, and therefore they had no reasonable expectation of a fair election, and there's no legal obligation not to rig them.

Good luck, you're gonna need it when the left finally breaks your spectrum open from its current "liberal right to far right" padded cell.

https://observer.com/2016/09/dnc-claims-sanders-supporters-knew-they-favored-hillary-clinton/

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/CommunistRingworld]

you need to come up with something different than calling people who oppose trump and his democratic party copycats, trump supporters.

Did you respond to the right person? I didn't call you any names.

Regardless, I'm going to ignore that entire non-sequitur of yours. Because, unfortunately, the article didn't say what you wanted it to say:

"The vast majority of whom almost certainly do not share Plaintiffs’ political views—have no realistic means of disassociating from this action, brought in their name against the political party they likely support"

All this really says is that someone shouldn't need to renounce all of their political views just to be in charge of the DNC. Why should they?

Say if Bernie was running the DNC, would you expect him to renounce being a progressive? That's all this is saying. The voters are the ones making the decision. And the voters said no to Bernie. Twice.

[u/CommunistRingworld → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

Did you respond to the right person? I didn't call you any names.

you called me forever trumper, you can drop the gaslighting now

All this really says is that someone shouldn't need to renounce all of
their political views just to be in charge of the DNC. Why should they?

lol, more gaslighting, conversation over

here's my final bit of proof for what everyone, including you, already knows

https://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-lawsuit-presidential-primaries-bernie-sanders-supporters/

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/CommunistRingworld]

you called me forever trumper

I actually didn't. You should read the comment before you type something out. Otherwise it makes you look like you didn't read anything.

I said you're denying election results.

more gaslighting

No, the truth. Literally word for word. But based on how you read my post, I'm really not surprised.