electoralism

Obama teetered close to the edge of having enough popular support to push major reforms that could have shaken up the whole country because everyone and their dog wanted the real estate bankers thrown in jail. Lock them up, as it were.

Instead we got what we got because they got scared that campaigning on change lead people to expect change might happen. And this time it had the possibility of being more than empty sloganeering: there was genuine popular support that could have carried some of the more serious reforms being offered on campaign. Quite a dangerous thing for the party that pretends to be a steward of status quo, bipartisan consensus, and pragmatic clear mindedness. Obama's charisma lessened the weight of the wet blanket they threw on top of the reform movement.

After him they tried to capitalize on Obamas success to continue the pivot back to safer neoliberal waters. Luckily for them the Republicans had become openly racist because a black man was president and Dems figured it was a safe move. Unfortunately that wasn't enough because then Trump showed up and offered what Obama had: the promise of changing things, pretending to recognize a broken system and offering not just to fix it but to bring reforms to it. Drain the swamp, lock her up, etc.

Trump proceeded to be such a colossal fuckup that they could campaign on "going back to normal" with success. Back to the broken neoliberal capitalism of yesteryear was better than whatever shitshow Trump had done: millions of people were fucking dead, for chrissakes! Anything is better than that!

However they got complacent again. They don't want change. They don't want people to expect change. They want people satisfied with a status quo that erodes little by little in ways the common people can still recognize. But instead of a charismatic orator they had a doddering mummy. People saw that he was, even without dementia, clearly old as fuck. And all they could do was co-opt progressive language to scold those who noticed. Don't do an ableism, Jack! It's just a stutter!

In short they only want to win on their terms. If the electorate refuses those terms? They're quite happy to lose again. After all, the Republican jackals will soon enough remind us stupid proles that we should have accepted their mediocrity. Shame on us, right?

they would rather lose than change things in a meaningful way

The Democrats didn't want Obama to run, because they have no interest in winning.

Did the DNC even want Obama to be the nominee over Clinton?

you're laboring under the mistaken impression that the democrats lost this time around. they didnt. they made sure there was no movement to the left AND they managed to fundraise.

why change strategy when you're winning?

With as many people working as hard as they do we have to assume that the outcome was what they wanted or at least prepared for. Donald Trump being in office is good for them financially.

short answer: you assume the democrats want to change anything about the neoliberal capitalist order

The democrats are the status quo party.

Because even empty talk about CHANGE gets Mr Porky uncomfortable and we can't have that. Also in times of heightening contradictions even such empty talk can inspire some workers to organize. Remember, TINA for capitalism is way more important than any personal details which exactly political parrot will sit in a porch this time.

Think about the answer to this question, "What happens when a high visibility Democratic candidate loses? What happens to the high ranking staffers or contractors who run the losing campaigns"

Do they leave politics in disgrace? Are they viewed as pariahs whose opinions are shunned? Are they fired from their jobs as political consultants and Professional Poll Prognosticators?

Nope. Failure and losing don't matter. A political creature who loses spectacularly can still get jobs as consultants within their respective political crony groups. A consultant who runs multiple campaigns where their candidate loses goes on to work as a consultant in other campaigns. Both will make the rounds on talk shows and get gigs writing op ed articles and being hosts on political talking head shows. They might even "write" a book or two. They'll get invited to make speeches on college campuses or conferences for the political consultant class, of course getting paid for their time.

About the only way to be professionally ostracized is by intentionally burning all your bridges.

There are no real professional consequences for failure. So, it very literally is like sports ball. Two teams play against each other where one team is, by the rules of the game, going to "lose" the match. All that is required is that they show up to play.

It didn't hurt that was a much better speaker than or and as a relatively fresh face didn't have the same amount of baggage (decades worth of it in Biden's case).

They are about fundraising and maintaining the cohesion of certain sectors of capital, not about winning elections.

And to those ends, this election was far more successful than 2008.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2024/10/total-2024-election-spending-projected-to-exceed-previous-record/

I get that the party leaders get paid regardless if they win or lose, but I have to assume the donors with the deepest pockets (looking at you, Allen Blue) are getting tired of throwing billions at losers...