It's the old guard refusing to step aside. Biden was a major player for the Dems for along time. It's the same for Republicans really. It's a political class that won't if cede a little to the new guys. So they crush most of their young on the rise. And most of those people wouldn't be denied.
Also the last three presidents never served, so military service is falling out of fashion for presidents. The next person elected won't have served either. And Clinton never served.
It's not just old guard vs new: there's a sort of cold war in the Dem party similar to the one that's been going on in the GOP. But while the Republican civil war has been between corrupt elite uniparty types and actual populists, the civil war in the Dem party is three-sided.
You've got the far leftists, and then two competing factions of the uniparty. One is unofficially led by the Obamas, and is committed to the same corrupt Deep State managerialism that has characterized the regime so far. The other, represented by the Clintons, the Bidens and people like Kamala Harris, is not just corrupt but totally criminal, and so brazen about it that they risk exposing and undermining the entire Deep State project.
The billions of dollars being spent on hiding the Bidens' and Clintons' dark money in Ukraine, the sheer scale of Chinese infiltration: the saner factions of the uniparty have to be aware that this is not sustainable, and it's exposed so much of the behind-the-scenes machinations that it jeopardizes their entire control network.
I genuinely think that the establishment deep-staters are allowing the extreme left and the rogue criminal elements of the party to fight it out and burn each other down in this election cycle so that they can reassert control over the party.
I was prepared to write off their selection of Harris as a necessary measure to avoid all out chaos at the convention if they were to have an actual abbreviated selection process. That they grabbed the first most plausible person available (obviously, the VP) and that was that.
But the choice of Walz reeks of housecleaning. They're aware the election is a throwaway, and they're using it to throw the undesirables in the party under the bus when they inevitably lose.
Looks like the GOPe are pursuing the same strategy, mismanaging Trump's campaign on purpose so that he loses and then they have their excuse to purge MAGA from the party. No wonder it feels like both campaigns are trying to lose.
On the outside it certainly seems like the Dems and associates lost control over their far left pushers/enforcers for almost a decade, but have recently begun winning the war on them. They're still a problem, which is why they don't want to risk someone like Newsom on this election, when they could save him for 2028/2032 and probably win easily.
I remember as a kid that Clinton not serving rubbed people the wrong way. My dad mentioned it a number of times. It used to be something that was expected but now voters don’t seem to care
I don't care if somebody served or not, just don't lie about your service or lack thereof.
...That being said, there's been a long-running formula for career politicians, and one of the optional branches of that formula is some sort of military service.
Personally, I keep it simple; I want results, not platitudes.
It's the old guard refusing to step aside. Biden was a major player for the Dems for along time. It's the same for Republicans really. It's a political class that won't if cede a little to the new guys. So they crush most of their young on the rise. And most of those people wouldn't be denied.
Also the last three presidents never served, so military service is falling out of fashion for presidents. The next person elected won't have served either. And Clinton never served.
It's not just old guard vs new: there's a sort of cold war in the Dem party similar to the one that's been going on in the GOP. But while the Republican civil war has been between corrupt elite uniparty types and actual populists, the civil war in the Dem party is three-sided.
You've got the far leftists, and then two competing factions of the uniparty. One is unofficially led by the Obamas, and is committed to the same corrupt Deep State managerialism that has characterized the regime so far. The other, represented by the Clintons, the Bidens and people like Kamala Harris, is not just corrupt but totally criminal, and so brazen about it that they risk exposing and undermining the entire Deep State project.
The billions of dollars being spent on hiding the Bidens' and Clintons' dark money in Ukraine, the sheer scale of Chinese infiltration: the saner factions of the uniparty have to be aware that this is not sustainable, and it's exposed so much of the behind-the-scenes machinations that it jeopardizes their entire control network.
I genuinely think that the establishment deep-staters are allowing the extreme left and the rogue criminal elements of the party to fight it out and burn each other down in this election cycle so that they can reassert control over the party.
I was prepared to write off their selection of Harris as a necessary measure to avoid all out chaos at the convention if they were to have an actual abbreviated selection process. That they grabbed the first most plausible person available (obviously, the VP) and that was that.
But the choice of Walz reeks of housecleaning. They're aware the election is a throwaway, and they're using it to throw the undesirables in the party under the bus when they inevitably lose.
Looks like the GOPe are pursuing the same strategy, mismanaging Trump's campaign on purpose so that he loses and then they have their excuse to purge MAGA from the party. No wonder it feels like both campaigns are trying to lose.
On the outside it certainly seems like the Dems and associates lost control over their far left pushers/enforcers for almost a decade, but have recently begun winning the war on them. They're still a problem, which is why they don't want to risk someone like Newsom on this election, when they could save him for 2028/2032 and probably win easily.
I remember as a kid that Clinton not serving rubbed people the wrong way. My dad mentioned it a number of times. It used to be something that was expected but now voters don’t seem to care
I don't care if somebody served or not, just don't lie about your service or lack thereof.
...That being said, there's been a long-running formula for career politicians, and one of the optional branches of that formula is some sort of military service.
Personally, I keep it simple; I want results, not platitudes.
No arguments from me