Good idea, just keep not voting while trumpists win elections, that'll show them!

Well they really fucked up. Biden was visibly senile, almost like trump is now, and they pushed it till last minute when switch to Kamala happened... too little too late.

Who is their counter-weight for future? As an outsider who doesn't watch US news regularly since they use pretty idiotic form most of the time, I know 0 powerful persona types of Clinton or Obama. A lot of blahs and farts in the wind, when you are against an expert populist that's not a winning recipe.

Biden was is literally more coherent now than trump was 12 years ago.

None of that changes people being willing to vote for a pedophile conman.

Who do you want to hear from that you're not seeing make statements? Hakeem Jeffries? Chuck Schumer? Ken Martin?

Why are people so obsessed with lying about immigration?

I thought that was basically accepted truth? For example, the New York Times described it as:

Recent Immigration Surge Has Been Largest in U.S. History

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/briefing/us-immigration-s...

I can't find a chart that is literally just number/year, but the chart at the top of https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/imm... is about the closest I can find.

If you look at it, you'll see that, yes, a million or two million or whatever immigrants arrived during the last year biden was in office.

However, if you're not trying to use statistics to lie, what you'll also find is that millions came every year for the past fifty years, including the years trump was president.

There might be some specific "record number" but only in the sense that the total population of humans increases every year so when the same percentage does the same thing as last year, the absolute number is now larger.

And of course this all ignores the part where immigration is a huge benefit to america.

I think the graph you linked obscures the issue a bit by showing total immigrant population by year, which would change much more slowly than arrivals by year.

I found a graph of arrivals by year here: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-u-s-net-immigration...

It certainly seems to be a big increase under Biden, compared to the last 25 years. Anyway, I personally favor immigration, I just don't want to use statistics to lie to myself either!

I'm not sure what exactly "net immigration" means in specific for these graphs, but according to this chart there were 9.8 million during bush and a predicted 10.4 under biden? This seems... statistically average? The number fluctuates a bit during different decades (and of course it's probably worth remembering that the trump years in this specific graph involved quite a bit of corona virus, whatever that means for these numbers)

My point here is mostly just that america has had lots of immigrants every year for the past 75 or something and there was nothing particularly unique or notable about the recent biden years and the people who claim there is are lying in order to achieve unrelated political goals.

Bush was 8 years while Biden was only 4. Biden was much higher on a per year basis than anyone else since 2000, but obviously people believe what they want to believe.

That's what their bias confirmation feed tells them happened.

This goes back to 2016, when Dems decided it was better to nominate one of the least popular American politicians in living memory than the alternative candidate who had broad working class appeal. Not to mention they juiced up Trump's campaign because that was the only candidate Mi Abuela was projected to win against. Yeah Trump may be the Antichrist but we wouldn't be here without him being able to run against some of the most comically weak candidates.

Democrat nominations are voted on by large numbers of people.

Superdelegates hamstrung the process. Kate Brown for instance, the governor of Oregon at the time (who btw was an unelected governer during that term, as her predecessor had stepped down) voted against the will of her constituents for Hilldog -- Oregon had overwhelmingly supported Bernie. Let's not forget some of the caucuses in other states which were outright rigged. An auditorium blew up for Bernie but the presiding party official put it in for Clinton. When shit like that just happens out in the open you have to wonder what's going on behind closed doors.

I believe Republicans actually have a democratic nomination process without superdelegates, which is how they got Trump -- IIRC he had a few early wins and snowballed from there.

There's a number of things going on here, but the short of it is that to become the democratic nominee you need to convince a whole bunch of people, including some super delegates. Hillary Clinton did a better job of this than Bernie Sanders.

How she did it could probably be the subject of an entire book, but no one has ever come up with any particularly scandalous stories about it so far.

Yes, and the superdelegates, whose job was to make sure people didn't pick the wrong candidate (how democratic of them), picked probably the least popular politician in America at the time.

Trump likely would have lost against almost any other candidate, but he had help from the Democratic party, who treated Hil's nom as a coronation.

This is such a silly hill to die on. Hillary clinton won the majority of voters both in the democratic nomination and in the national election.

Yeah she was so popular they had to rig caucuses in her favor, and superdelegates had to defy their constituents.