The Democrats do not have a realistic chance of winning against Trump because the Democrats are entirely incapable of challenging power. It's the fundamental contradiction of liberalism. They won't do anything for the people they need to vote for them because if they do the people who fund them will stop funding them.
Obama and Sanders both excelled at small-dollar donations, of course. Sadly, Obama was a silver-tongued coward and the Clinton Democrats made sure she didn't repeat the mistakes of 2008 in 2016 by not bothering to sign up voters in case they killed her in the primaries again.
They dig their own grave and they do so willingly because it makes them exceedingly rich.
Obediently voting for the least worst option means you eventually run out of good options. <- we are here
The conundrum is working out how you force those options to get better without accelerationists getting to test out their theories for real (again).
I would respectifully suggest that "shut the fuck up and vote" does not cut it.
Cigarettes were marketed as actively healthy and good for the lungs. They used doctors to sell them. And wanted everyone to know that the only reason that smokers kept dying of lung diseases is because cigarettes are good for lungs so of course people with bad lungs were smokers. Duh.
The fact of higher protein content appears to be true (without going back to find and critique all the original studies). Explanations are much harder to 'prove' for questions like this.
We can't do experiments on the evolution of tears, so all we can do is come up with plausible theories and look at how they fit with the body of evidence. With enough evidence, from enough different angles, we might one day be able to say which proposed explanations fit the facts (and which don't). It's how we (eventually) proved smoking was killing people (another question we cannot do experiments on human beings to prove one way or the other) but not all questions are as important as smoking was and there isn't necessarily a neat, single factor explanation to find even if someone was willing to fund all the necessary research.
Not my area but, for example, I recently saw a study claim that sniffing women's tears makes men less aggressive. That's an angle that might help build some support for, or knock down, the theory that emotional tears are useful for social communication (ie help get women killed slightly less often). Did those studies use sad stories or onions? Did any study compare sad stories to onions? If we're seeing hints of differences between sad stories and onions, that would tend to support the social communication element of the explanation. Unless we think there's a difference between sad tears and frightened tears, which there probably is, so we should check that too. And the rest of the literature on tears, if it's considered important enough to get the theory right. And we need to remember that sticky tears are not the same thing as smelly tears, so can we do experiments where non-emotional tears are made sticky, and non-sticky tears made to smell frightened?
Etc etc.
Explaining things we observe but cannot directly experiment on is a process, a process which typically takes many years and dozens of research groups. And a lot of funding. And decades of exhausting battles, if there is a lot riding on the answer (as it did with Big Tobacco vs Public Health).
That does rather beg the question of whether boys or girls are encouraged to be loud.
But maybe they're just picking up on teachers' biases? Teachers Give Lower Math Scores to Girls
I thought Uncommitted was a smart use of the primaries.
More generally, obviously much more critical than in the election itself. But getting the right candidates in the primary, and pushing all candidates to be better in all the usual ways. They're never going to chase us to the left like they chase to the right, so we have to do the work and set the boundaries.