Fo3 had a small update recently to get rid of Games For Windows Live and to fix Windows 10/11 compatibility.
The FNV update was probably something similar.
That wasn't exactly on Todd Howard, though? There was going to be a new update for Fallout 4, and everyone, especially every modder, knew that for at least a year beforehand.
There are 5 other even larger projects in development other than Fallout London, Fallout London was the only one to come out and blame Bethesda for a foreseeable delay.
They've figured out that all they really need to do to appease Orban is to make Hungary's name really big on maps.
and Jr will be trumps vp for this election! Wheeeee!
Why do Trump's possible VP's keep having weird scandals about dead dogs.
Candidates have to get a certain amount of signatures before getting ballot access on the primary in a state.
Williamson and Phillips weren't able to do that everywhere, and Biden was, that's on them not having as many campaign resources as a literal incumbent U.S. President, not the DNC somehow keeping them off the ballot.
Biden and Dem leadership were saying it up to a few months ago, so it shouldn't be hard to admit.
It was longer than a few months ago and they clearly said why they stopped even considering packing the Supreme Court.
Not only did they not have a congress to pass it, because they've never held anywhere close to enough of a super majority to get past fillibuster. But it's also effectively handing a loaded gun to a second Trump presidency or any Republican presidency to do the same.
During a Fox & Friends interview on March 6, 2024, Gabbard was directly asked about serving as Trump's vice-president. She responded, "I would be honored to serve our country in that way and be in a position to help President Trump..." In March 2024, Gabbard was cited by Trump as one of his potential choices for his vice presidential running mate.
Seems like you're the one who isn't paying attention
Not only did she not even apply for the Democratic Nomination, she seems more inclined to being Trump's VP than a possible democratic nominee.
That's simply not true, Tulsi Gabbard had the opportunity to submit her name to the primary election after getting enough signatures just like Dean Phillips and Marriane Williamson did.
She didn't even do that, the most basic step of trying to become president, I wouldn't blame the DNC for her not bothering with the basics.
That's why I said kind of.
Establishment/center right Dem influence on the primary happens through endorsements and media connections. While the actual primary is actually rather free, it's not very fair as the establishment gets the first say over the narrative, though this is weakening incredibly over time with more social media and independent media influence.
About 25 to 50 percent, depending on which Polling Aggregate source you're using for Biden currently. Which would presumably improve with another candidate.
Meanwhile, RFK Jr., the highest polling of the third party candidates, has less than 1% chance of winning enough electoral votes.
However, my original point wasn't that a Biden replacement would do better than RFK or a third party in the general (though they certainly would), but that if you dislike Biden, him being replaced is more likely than a third party candidate ever winning.
I've never met a single person who thinks any of them could actually get the popular or electoral vote, at this point replacing Biden with another Democrat would be far more likely.
The dnc really ought to let voters nominate their own candidates, instead of force feeding us their choice.
The biggest hurdle for potential candidates is name recognition and funding for getting those signatures. Even after getting the signatures, it's very hard to challenge an incumbent, like was proven by Dean Phillips and Marriane Williamson.
I'm hardly responsible if the majority of or the leadership of The Party don't align with my views. It is they who have failed us, not the other way around.
Like I said, you're not responsible for their current policies, that would be the Democratic voter base of 30 years ago, but you're responsible for not trying to vote them out and writing off the entire fucking party as the same.
Have fun feeling politically nihilistic and irrelevant though, it sure worked for the CPUSA, the SPA, the SWP and every other third partyist of the past 100 years.
Meanwhile they actively attacked Bernie calling him old (which is funny to think about now) and mocking his supporters as "Bernie bros" as they pulled all the stops to prevent Bernie from getting the nomination.
This is what a couple media pundits said yes, I don't think this is evidence that liberals secretly would rather have fascism however, for the same reason as I stated before, they spent almost every day of his presidency condemning him.
Democrats bashed trump while helping him behind the scenes: https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
Speaking of which, they love funding fascists in general: https://www.vox.com/23274469/democrats-extremist-republicans-mastriano-cox-bailey
Again, a few instances of some Democrats making stupid decisions and making a stupid tactical electoral decision, is not evidence that they prefer Trump to Bernie, or that they fought Bernie harder.
For every article you can provide of an out of touch media pundit saying something about Bernie, or a party strategist making a dumb decision around Trump, I can find 10 times that amount of Democrats condemning something Trump did.
The vast majority of liberal democrats criticizing Bernie cake during the two primaries, during which they were still criticizing Trump, and the majority of the non-primary time this past 8 years has been spent attacking Trump. Again, that doesn't sound like more effort against Bernie than Trump to me.
absolutely no say in the matter
You can keep shoving your head in the sand or research and confirm what I've been saying is the truth, that candidates are nominated by candidate choice, signatures, and then a primary vote. Up to you.
Your continued support of the familiar means they'll never change.
Lmfao, yeah? Can I ask how long you've been involved in politics? Or how much you know about American domestic political history?
The Democratic Party and Klu Klux Klan Venn Diagram a century ago would've been essentially a circle, with some weird progressives like Roosevelt on the sidelines. The past century of American political conflict has been one of the Democrats slowly solidifying around socially left issues and the Republicans doing the opposite, solidifying around the right. Both Parties found an economically left wing New Deal consensus after the squabbling of great depression recovery, which lasted basically until Reagan and the creation of a Neoliberal consensus.
That's all to say that the Parties have changed massively over the past 100 years, the Democrats completely switched their position on social and economic issues.
I have been pushing for my part of the Democratic party to be more economically and socially liberal for a decade now, and even in that short time I've noticed immense changes in what the party is willing to accept. A decade ago, rent control advocacy would've had city level Democratic officials criticizing me, and now Biden, a moderate, is advocating for it in debates and in speeches.
The Overton window of the Democratic Party has never been stagnant. It has trended solidly left on almost everything for a century, and you'd have to be ignorant or bad faith to not recognize that.
That's mainly because the U.S. system is antiquated in all sorts of ways and basically everyone understands that, iirc Ruth Bader Ginsburg specifically said the constitution was outdated and that modern framers of a constitution would be much better off looking at Germany's and South Africa's than the United State's for inspiration.
regardless of who puts forth the candidate
That's the thing, though, no one "puts forth" a candidate except the candidate themselves, parties will sometimes reach out to activists or local party officials for local or state office nominations, but Federal office candidates are almost always decided by candidates themselves getting signatures and putting their name forward.
You're no more responsible for the failures of the party than party establishment officials at the DNC, and likely quite less responsible, but you are responsible for writing off the party as a whole, and thereby abandoning the about 50% of the party that wants to take it in a progressive/anti-capitalist direction.
That they fought harder to stop Bernie from getting the nomination twice than they ever fought against trump speaks volumes.
I don't remember almost every single Democrat bashing Bernie publicly every single time they had the chance like most democrats did with Trump for the last 8 years. Are you not remembering the firestorm of statements from elected officials anytime Trump did something horrific?
The democratic party will never be replaced with progressives because their donors won't allow it.
I bet Malcom X and the Segregationist Democrats would've felt the exact same, and yet that last set of reactionary Dems has been completely purged from the party since the 60s.
You know registered Democratic voters pick the nominee, not the DNC, correct?
If you want someone like Bernie to win, you have to fight with the establishment over the Democratic voterbase, and the Bernie campaign never succeeded in winning over the majority of the Democratic voterbase. You can argue this is because the majority of the endorsements and media were on Hillary's side, but that was inevitable, you can't just expect your internal Party opponent to roll over, you have to build up an opposing powerbase within the party and media.
Seems like a lot of socialists and progressives got too disenchanted from Bernie losing to ever accept that, though.
No party that "served the rich" would've even let people like Bernie into the party, let alone give them committee assignments and let them run for president on their ticket.
There's no point in arguing that the Democratic Party is entirely controlled by the rich other than to encourage political nihilism. It has always been possible and always will be possible to beat wins out of (or even change/become) the party establishment through concerted effort and activism, as happened in the 30s, the Civil Rights Era, and the purging of the Blue Dogs after the Civil Rights era.
Bernie's losses were disheartening, but abandoning any effort to sway the democrats and writing them off as "servants of the rich" when the decade before 2016 had been one of growing progressivism within the party and when Bernie unfortunately never even beat Hillary in a Dem Primary Poll, is the political equivalent of taking your ball and going home.
Bash on the DNC and NDC all you want, but until we replace them with progressives like was done to the segregationist dems or lose doing so, there's no point in writing off the Democratic Party.