That’s right reader. YOU are responsible for this nightmare. If only you
recycled your plastics more,used a non plastic straw, shouted at your peers to vote, you could have prevented this hell hole. So hold yourself personally responsible and then push that anxiety and stress onto others without any nuance. Cause if you can prove your moral goodness maybe the world might be heaven without any work other than checking a box.This is not really at all accurate math and it won’t change the people happily voting the other way. Or the Electoral College. Or the ridiculous amount of bribes, corruption and party politics.
I hate this photo for so many reasons and I also think voting should be a mandatory holiday. I just refuse to pretend that this idea that it would fix everything because you yelled at enough people to
pray harder, vote more.Stop wasting your vote with the duopoly; voting out of fear should not be the norm.
Do not give in to the fearmongering that the establishment and the politicians push on the people every four years.
Our long-term goal should be to continue to build up grassroots movements for the working class; this won’t happen in a day.
Hey vote and you can accomplish alllll this wonderful stuff, all the stuff you want.
You: wHy dO yOu WaNt mE tO vOtE iN fEaR.
Hey vote and you can accomplish alllll this wonderful stuff, all the stuff you want
Voting is a necessary but not sufficient condition for accomplishing things. For example, I voted for Obama to get some kind of single payer and that didn’t happen.
Plus there’s things I want that no amount of voting will accomplish, like the dissolution of nation-states.
What Dems need is consistent and overwhelming victories. Want single payer? Then you need more house reps and senators so Manchin types can’t water it down. Thus the message in the original post.
Unfortunately I can’t vote in other districts or states so I’m at the whims of whatever everyone else does.
Like I said in another post: Voting is a group project and everyone in my group is ignorant and short-sighted. I hold no hope for ever getting the sort of overwhelming victories we need.
If it will take forty years of solid Democratic majorities to unfuck this country then it will never be unfucked.
This is the point where I point to the original post.
The original post is very Pollyanna and ignores systemic and demographic problems that will never allow that level of domination.
I’ve been voting for 25 years and these things haven’t happened, and I don’t think they will ever happen.
It’s a tad simplistic but it’s on point because the left never shows up or votes 3rd party. If they showed up, it would be a big change.
Voting for the status quo for many decades did not improve the lives of workers.
In fact, we are involved in multiple wars, and our economy is not doing so well again.
Man… this makes me miss being in high school.
our economy is not doing so well again.
Uhh
Do you notice you misportray again? You vote for change. Sure it might be a little change until the Dems are sure they can keep winning, but that’s how change starts. Like, see the original post again.
Carter wanted to change things. And he got voted the fuck out.
So Clinton learned to go to the center, and he won.
Gore wanted to change things and ran on environmentalism. And bam he lost the election.
So Obama learned to not say anything. He ran on vague hope. But he did the ACA. And what was his thanks? To lose the House of Reps, then again lose the house of reps, and then to lose both the house of reps and the senate.
Clinton said she’d have a map room to fight climate change. And bam she lost the election.
So Biden learned to stfu about environmentalism. And he won. But Biden did green energy anyway. And what was this thanks? Polls said he was going to lose.
So Kamala also learned to stfu about environmentalism and pretty much anything progressive.
That’s what the situation is. The Dems go to the center because everytime they look left they loose. How do you make things progress? By giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
Such an astute point! Well said!
Very long way to tell us how straight and white and not in immediate danger you are.
Wrong assumtions on all parts.
Nice try though, racing to the bottom with victimhood so as to disregard others that do not bow down to your ideals.
Again, just spelling out how white and not in danger you are, just now you’re lying about it because you think just going “nah bro” hides how above it all you’re talking as if you know you’ll be fine anyways.
Political tribalism is working really well to keep dividing us.
You have already made up your mind that everyone who does not follow your ideals must have much more privilege than yourself.
No, you just behave in a way that gives yours away because you’re the exact kind of privileged twit who unironically named themself “LeftOfJillStein” like that signals anything other than that you’re a purity tester who can afford to let everyone else die while they wait for their messiah before taking any action towards even harm mitigation.
Especially considering Jill Stein is a tool of the right wing. Democrats are left of Jill Stein.
Again, you made up your mind to have a competition of racing to the bottom, so you can continue to dismiss and ignore others.
I am for fighting for a better society for the future, and that starts by growing grassroots movements and continuing to help our local communities.
I see the Green Party as a stepping stone that will help us much more in the long term, tacking our systematic problems.
Exactly what grass roots steps are the greens taking aside from appearing out of thin air every four years to spoil elections to the Republicans?
I didn’t just make up my mind, you chose to behave in a way that made you obvious.
The green party’s goal is a trump win.
Sawant’s speech, introducing Jill Stein. Emphasis mine:
We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic, we could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan.”
That’s who you want to vote for?
The person trying to give Trump a win?
Just be honest with yourself and vote for Trump then. Or, you know, place a vote for Harris and not have republican fascism win.
If that’s true, then you’re in the same boat as us, only you’re holding the gun to your own head instead of having it held by someone else, and talking about what a principled stand pulling the trigger is going to be.
This imaginary gun is being held by the duopoly against the populace every four years, just so that the status quo can continue.
Fact that you call it imaginary continues to spell out for us your position of privilege.
You are no ally of the oppressed. You are an appropriator of our language to buy your own feelings of moral superiority.
I’m going to bet they’re not wrong. You clearly have nothing to lose by throwing away your vote. Meanwhile, others need to vote for their lives and the lives of our loved ones while YOU….
You get to sit and pretend that none of it matters unless you get your way.
That’s entitlement. And entitlement usually only come from a single source.
Our long-term goal should be to continue to build up grassroots movements for the working class; this won’t happen in a day.
Cool, now which is easier to build movements under, a fascist regime, or a moderate milquetoast capitalist regime?
Will throwing your vote away in protest of ‘the duopoly’ do anything, in this election, to change that or meaningfully contribute to a grassroots movement for the working class?
We have a thousand tools at our disposal. Voting is one - an important one. Tools should not be misused, but each one used in its own unique way to maximize its effect on your goals.
We are currently in a fascist regime; both parties are heavily lobbied by corporations that dictate policy.
People continue to struggle more and more under both parties, while they play political theater to continue to divide us.
Voting outside the two-party system will help establish that people do have standards when voting.
Voting is one - an important one.
Yes, and a good percentage of the populace decides to stay in and not reward the duopoly with their vote.
Lord.
The Lord won’t help us on this one; we need to be the ones to fight for what we demand.
The civil rights movements happened because people were fed up with the status quo.
There is the right to cast a vote, also a right to protest.
Please don’t confuse the two and protest by not voting.
Voting and protesting: to create a better society, people need to be willing to demand more than what the status quo can provide.
Heads up. “Left of Shill Stein” is what most know to be called democrats.
The presidential election year before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 saw relatively high voter turnout. 61.4%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections
People voted in the Democratic Party candidate by a wide margin. 61.1%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_United_States_presidential_election
If we protest, but then don’t vote, nothing will change. So voting in records numbers is the answer. Specifically, in our present case, voting for the party that wants to improve things incrementally over fascists.
I see the duopoly as the fascists, though…
Maybe the real fascists were the friends we made along the way
Please provide examples to justify your claim. I’d like to know more. I’ll give you your first one since it’s everywhere in the headlines nowadays - weapons to Israel.
Believing in lies doesn’t make them true. The Republicans are fascists who believe immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country and that the genes of people of color predispose them to be criminals. Just because Republicans believe it doesn’t make it true.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/07/trump-immigrants-crime-00182702
How is giving your vote to whoever becomes the largest by not voting winning anything? You can do all the other things you mentioned and still make a conscious choice to do the least harm by not voting a demagogue in. It’s just one of the many steps you can take as a person wishing to influence the world around you.
Just like eating no meat or less meat. Will it fix everything wrong with farming? No. Does that mean you should just start buying more meat and not eat it, letting it rot in your fridge instead? Also no! No one cares if you did that and it accomplishes nothing except make the problem much worse, which is exactly what not voting gets you.
Again, the duopoly is the staus quo, it will not help fix the systematic problems our society faces.
Then get involved in a 3rd party that works against the republican fascists and coordinates with Democrats for ballot access like WFP.
Whining about “the duopoly” and not voting will just move things further right.
We are currently in a fascist regime; both parties are heavily lobbied by corporations that dictate policy.
That’s not fascism.
People continue to struggle more and more under both parties, while they play political theater to continue to divide us.
100% people need to engage more. And in national elections quit voting for 3rd parties. Showing solidarity with and not dividing themselves from the rest of the left. Till our voting system is reformed and 3rd party presidential candidates are no longer a mathematical impossibility. With the only message being sent, that you’re safe to ignore.
Voting outside the two-party system will help establish that people do have standards when voting.
That’s literally the exact opposite of what it does.
Yes, and a good percentage of the populace decides to stay in and not reward the duopoly with their vote.
Then they get the lack of change they’ve committed to.
Why is it that any time these pseudo-intellectual “leftists” pop up to spew their bullshit, they’re knocked back by like… 5-10 people that absolutely school them and in the end, all they can respond is-
“Nuh-uhh!”
And then rinse and repeat the following day. What do they think they’re accomplishing? I mean, it’s especially very telling that they’re downvoted into the dark ages on a platform that supposedly leans heavily in their direction.
This says a lot in my opinion. In that there may be hope for lemmy once the election is over and these vapid people eventually collapse in on themselves like a dying star.
THEY ALWAYS COME BACK. But it will be quieter for a year or two. If they’re sincere, and some are. They’re suffering form the same mental weakness/illness that the MAGATS are. They want to believe they are righteous, correct, and in possession of special knowledge or insight. That they believe those that disagree with them can’t comprehend.
If they’re not sincere. Well they’re still like the MAGATS. Malicious, spiteful, and crab mentally. Either hypocritically, simply anti-west like most ML you see. Or benefiting disproportionately on the backs of labor. And know the best way to keep labor down. Is to divide it against itself. Kind of like ML governments do as well.
Reading comments like this is unbelievably frustrating, because you’re so close to being right, but you refuse to take that next tiny step, which makes you dangerously wrong.
Yes, both parties are lobbied out the ass, it’s bad and it’s wrong, but which party at least tries to mitigate the harm? Yes, there’s unproductive political theater that divides, but which party at least tries to talk about real issues that matter to everyday voters?
Your approach is akin to burning down the house instead of doing the hard work of fixing the roof. You will never get the outcome you imagine by voting for a third party, unless you do the hard work of improving our overall system, from inside the system. You play the game with the team you have, not the team you want.
The problem with this take is that you cannot conversely punish the duopoly by withholding your vote, regardless of whether or not you think they “earned” it. Even if you don’t vote, one of them still gets in. The problem is, the people who are going to vote for the significantly worse of the two options are very motivated to vote, and they will do so.
Yeah. Somehow they think that if they don’t vote- no one gets elected. They don’t understand that a decision will be made without their input.
Or they do, and that’s the entire point.
Cool, now which is easier to build movements under, a fascist regime, or a moderate milquetoast capitalist regime?
Let’s be real here, the kind of person ranting on the internet about “ThE DuOpOlY” is not actually interested in building anything at all. They just like to stomp their feet, and shout “no fair!” over and over again like the petculant children they are, while the grownups are busy trying to prevent the country from descending into fascism.
Not the same person, but I carry similar sentiments. I helped form the second largest tech union in North America. What are you doing to support the working working class and build alternatives to capital? Tossing support at the nearest person in fear doesn’t prevent fascism.
Voting against the fascist candidate abso-fucking-lutely prevents fascism. This is an extremely simple concept that one would imagine the founder of the second-largest tech union in North America should be able to wrap their mind around.
I think my point has been missed. The fact that there’s an openly fascist candidate running for president means that fascism is already here and in power.
They’re not in power. But you’re helping them get back in power. If people like you decided to get behind the non-fascist, it would be a non-issue, hence the post.
I can name some of them. You probably recognize them.
- Mike Johnson
- Marjorie Greene
- Mitch McConnell
- Jacob Frey
- Leonard Leo
Nowhere did I say I wasn’t voting. Voting is the least effective method of change that exists, but it’s still a method. I will still be participating because it can lead to minor changes. If you think that defeating fascism can be done by voting once every 4 years however, you will be played.
To use your example, here are the options:
- today we can definitely get a Union that covers some tech workers but not all of them.
Or
- today we can try to get a Union for all tech workers, but it’s a long shot. And if we lose, the consequences are that we don’t get another union vote for 4 years and during that time, the tech companies get to run rampant with negative propaganda about unions, making the challenge even harder next time.
Which would you choose, second largest tech union guy?
False dichotomy. The stakes of the second version are the same for the first regardless of union size. There never has been and never will be a guaranteed union campaign until we overthrow capitalism.
^ THIS… is what MAGA wants you to believe. ^
4 month old account
Posts nothing but praise for Third Parties/Jill Stein (a known spoiler vote and Russian asset)
Found the Hidden Trump Supporter guys
Nice try.
I know you would rather I vote for Trump than Dr. Jill Stein, but I do not support the duopoly.
A vote for Stein is supporting Trump.
That’s her purpose. She’s nothing but a tool of the right wing. Democrats are left of Jill Stein.
Edit: , -> ;
It seems many of you want third party voters to vote for Trump, but we do not support or vote for the duopoly.
Democrats are left of Jill Stein.
Your political views are skewed; I would double check the records:
Jill Steins platform is nonsense. She has done nothing to accomplish any of it, only shows up for presidential elections, and one of her people literally said that their goal was to try and get Harris to lose battleground states for a Trump win as they know Jill Stein won’t.
Said at a Jill Stein event as part of a speech.
Jill Stein is a tool of the republican party and nothing more.
I suggest you find a third party that isn’t completely garbage.
No one here believes you.
“They have to do that stuff first to earn my vote! I don’t care if they never had the power to do so!”
-Morons
“They’ve had 4 years to do something!”
Ughh… Learn how it works people. We had 2 conservative “Democrat” (golly gee look how Manchild is not a Democrat anymore literally…) senators deny everything from 2020-2022, then we lost the house to Republicans who’s idea of bipartisanship is to give Democrats the finger all the time from 2022-2024… Sooo what exactly could we do?
Then there’s the extra special people who want to “balance” by voting D president and R representatives… Ffs… That shit died when Gingrich started his “my way or go fuck yourself” brand of politics…
Yo are you even American cause you do alot of commenting under a Netherlands instance? You are literally the outside foreign influences.
Unfortunately whatever shit goes down in your country affects the rest of the world.
Nobody would’ve given a fuck about USA if it was as relevant as Romania or Denmark.
I mean, where you sign up says something about you, right?
Yarr.
You’re not wrong.
You are literally the outside foreign influences.
And who the fuck are you?
Discussing American politics online isn’t being a foreign influence. I’m not American, but sure as fuck their politics affects me.
Lol I can understand the confusion, but I really am an American in America. I came over from the reddit exodus last year and lemmy.world couldn’t handle all the new people for a time so I swapped over to a smaller instance that happens to be from the Netherlands.
I hope you don’t mind me squatting here feddit.nl :P
We welcome all. You can get your standard issue clogs and bitterballen at check in ;)
So have downvotes for pointing out the obvious and you have upvotes for saying your American despite no proof, so where are from? At least state would be nice cause otherwise you are a literally out of country influencer
Where’s your proof? This is the dumbest shit posted here today.
Why you even speaking up? Where you from?
You came into a comment chain which didn’t involve you and offered no proof of your own. Stop being like you are.
If you didn’t believe me before what would it matter if I told you I’m from NY and specifically long island? I could tell you I hate the L.I.E with every fiber of my being, that housing prices for glorified shacks that look like they burned down twice are going for 300k, and that the ocean parkway is a decent way to get around shit traffic on sunrise highway. I don’t know how a random person on the Internet is supposed to prove that is true though.
You could also just check my comment history, I’ve mentioned where I’m from a number of times. It’s one of the reasons I don’t delete my history, so if anyone questions “who I am” they can just check it. Just be warned, there’s a bunch of stupid comments, exasperation, and self loathing there lol
Not that it matters, but at least I didn’t downvote you. I understand the skepticism
You not from NY, you think anything other a parking spot going for 300, like stop playing
I can’t help anymore than I already have. I’m not posting personal information to prove anything. I really don’t know why you’re so dead set on being convinced I’m not from the US.
If I was trying to influence people by being deceptive don’t you think I’d avoid having a foreign instance? I’d have like America.Patriot.Eagle or some nonsense lol
I’m from Suffolk county so…:
Edit: I had to come back to this because it just hit me, if you were able to tell that most prices really are wayyyyy higher than 300k are you from NY too? That would be absolutely wild out of all the people on here we’d end up having this discussion as “neighbors!” Small world and all that shit lol
Why are you like this
Bah, the only way to suss out a true New Yorker is to check their preferred Pizza joint.
My kitchen! Lol
My grandma taught me how to make a fried pizza years ago and now that’s all I want to make when I want pizza lol
Except I keep voting and they still don’t care what I think because I’m on the left.
Vote in the primaries.
The only reason I’m a registered Democrat is so I can vote in the primaries in my state. And I do so as often as possible.
Good! You’re pulling things to the left!
So politics means “when you do things right it will feel like you’ve done nothing at all?”
No, it just means there’s more people pulling things to the right. Next you gotta convince people to pull with you.
The absolute top tier play for Leftists now is to show up in DROVES this election, hand Kamala a landslide. And then put up a ton of candidates in the next primary. Show the DNC that you are a force which can win elections, and then put the fear of being primaried in them. That’s dragging things to the left.
Considering every election makes me feel more like an outsider in my own country I think it will be less frustrating just to feel like I lose every election.
Unless you have some tips on breaking Americans of their patriotism.
i’m just here for the yOuUuUuU sUpPoRt GeNoCiDe!!! chuds to get triggered and provide entertainment
inb4 “Genocide Joe” and “Blue MAGA” comments
God, I hate fighting people just to get them to vote in a way that makes mathematic and strategic sense.
I have a really hard time staying cool and collected when I discuss politics with people who hold right-wing positions. As a result, I never do volunteer work for political campaigns, because it seems like the only positions available are phone-banking and door-knocking. It’s frustrating; I want to help, but I feel strongly that I’d do more harm than good, doing either of those things.
How about putting up signs?
To be fair, you’re looking at either getting shot at, going to jail for assault of a nazi, or at best, suffer a heart attack from the sheer blood pressure one gets dealing with those insufferable people. I think not volunteering is probably for the best, haha.
“You” in this context, is reffering to over 200,000,000 individuals.
Reminder: you can find instructions to check your voter registration here, as well as voting resources for your state.
That site is busted. I’m registered but it tells me it has no record after sending me into a loop of putting in my info. Republicans probably pushed fascist updates to it.
Every time the Dems lose, they go to the center to find voters. Want them to stop going to the center? Then give them overwhelming and consistent victories.
If you think you can change their platform by not voting or voting 3rd party, you’re dead wrong. They will just go to the center voter even more. This is not a Mexican standoff that you can win because they have an out that is worth double (a center voter is both a vote for them and vote taken away from the other party).
How are we supposed to change their platform? Because rewarding them with victories when all they do is go to the center hasn’t been working.
You change their policy by giving them consistent and overwhelming victories.
Rewarding then with victories? They never have victories. They have had control of all 3 of presidency, House of Reps, and Senate for 4 of the last 24 years. Or 6 of the last 32 years. Or 6 of the last 44 fucking years. They need all 3 to do much of anything and they basically never have it. So they go to the center to find voters. So try something new and give them actual victories.
Every time any politician gets into office is a victory for them. That’s all they care about.
Like way to move the goalpost. That’s not what’s going on and you know it. I already said it, Dems need all 3: Presidency, House of representatives, and Senate.
The reality is the majority of the USA is in the center. It’s why we usually don’t have run away elections.
I would argue that most Americans are apathetic and easily swayed by rhetoric calling reasonable progressive policies “extreme”. That’s not exactly the same as being in the center, although it does lead to pretty much the same outcomes.
This is the answer. Us weirdos on a weird social network made by literal communists are not the majority and should stop acting like we are.
Every time I see a campaign ad for Harris I feel like I’m worthless to her because it’s all “yay America” and I know too much history to feel that way.
It’s bad that I want her to win… because she’s not trump and she’s not going to hand Ukraine over to putin…
I want her to win, but barely, maybe after losing Michigan, so she feels some sort of pressure to end the genocide and stop supporting Israel. That’s my ideal scenario. It would be cool if she picked up a reddish purple state, like Florida, but I would also hate if that encouraged her to keep running to the center.
If a centre vote is worth double, then it doesn’t make any difference if the left are mobilised to vote or not.
With a mobilised left it’s left-vote=1 centre-vote=2
With an apathetic left it’s left-vote=0 centre-vote=2
Either way the centre vote is worth more so the party moves to the centre.
But if this is wrong, and the left vote is indeed worth more, then why change policies to court the centre, why not have openly leftist policies to attract this game-changing leftist vote?
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim that the democrats have to hide their leftist agenda to gain votes and also claim that the leftist voting block is the make or break of electoral success.
You have this all twisted around in who knows what. They move to the center when they* lose*. They don’t move just because.
Right now the left never shows up. Occasionally the Dems run in y a left platform and they lose. Think Gore, think Hilary saying she’ll have a map room.*After they lose" they go to the center to find voters. Now imagine they don’t lose every time they run on a left policy? Because the left never shows up.
Occasionally the Dems enact a left policy. Think of Obama’s ACA. Thank Biden green energy… Their thanks for this is Obama lost the House of Reps, then lost the house of reps again, then lost both the house of reps and the Senate. Biden lost the house of reps, and polls shows Biden was going to lose. Not imagine they won after enacting left policy. They’re probably enact more. But the left never shows up.
If the left wants things to change They. Have. To. Show. Up.
Hide their agenda? They adopt what the
peoplevoters (the ones that show up) vote for. If the left voters show up, then guess what? More left policies will be adopted. C’mon this is civics for kindergarteners. You have this so twisted around to justify not voting.Oh. And whilst I’ve got such a golden opportunity to have “kindergarten” level civics so patiently explained to me…
How do the Democrats find out the political leanings of the voters who won them the vote in order to reward? them next time with policies they like? Is there some magic poll they can access, but only after an election? Because any poll which they could access before an election would obviously tell them in advance what a willing and committed set of voters they’d have if only they put in some more left wing policies.
You’re suggesting polling subtle enough to determine policy preferences among different demographics, but somehow incapable of determining voting commitment/apathy. Apparently an actual election is the only way anyone can find that information out. But once done they magically know exactly why everyone voted the way they did.
Oh. And whilst I’ve got such a golden opportunity to have “kindergarten” level civics so patiently explained to me…
Taking that attitude you’re showing you’re not here in good faith. And skimming through yeah you’re rife with attitude and twisting,so these will be my final responses.
How do the Democrats find out the political leanings of the voters who won them the vote in order to reward? them next time with policies they like? Is there some magic poll they can access, but only after an election?
This is not nearly so complicated that you make it out to be. I’m seeing a pattern, you did this before too: You construct a twisted, narrow interpretation so that you can walk out on it and say look at this very narrow interpretation, explain this narrow interpretation.
This is so much simpler. Do they lose? Do they win? A brief history may help you, and I’ve had this conversation (slightly different context, but it still works):
Ok let’s go through this chronologically.
Bill Clinton: After successive Dem losses Bill figured out “it’s the economy stupid”. Plus when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you generally run from the center. So that’s what he did. And he won.
Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Obama: So guess what Obama learned? Don’t stick your head out. He ran on vague “hope”, hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush’s disastrous wars. And he won.
More on Obama: so he enacted the ACA. That’s great, right? The thanks Obama got for that was to lose the House of Representatives for year 3 and 4. And lose the House of reps again for years 5 and 6. And then lose both the House of reps and the Senate for years 7 and 8. He enacted left policy and: The left never shows up.
Hillary Clinton: So what did Hillary learn from the last 6 years of Obama? She learned that the left never shows up. So she ran a mostly center platform to get voters, BUT with a big position to left on the map room to climate change. She basically declared war on climate change. You know that big existential issue that all the leftists care about, right? The big important issue that the left says they will show up for, right? And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Biden: Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don’t stick your head out left on anything. Not one thing. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. And he won.
More on Biden: So Biden did green energy, EVs, drug price control, etc. And what were the results? Lost the House of Representatives. Polls showed him losing to Trump. He enacted left policy and: The left didn’t show up and was likely to not show up.
Harris: So guess what Harris is doing? She’s adopting Obama’s tactic to run on vague “get ahead” and having energy. From what I know she’s not announced anything left, other than vague tax the billionaires. She has no reason to think the left will ever show up.
Look at the history and this becomes pretty simple. They don’t get elected on left platforms despite running them. They get elected when they go center or simply stfu. And when they enact left things, they pay for it the next election.
So what would happen if the left actually shows up? Yeah, they’d win when they run on left platform. They’d win after they enacted left policy. The pathway is consistent and overwhelming victories. Show them it’s safe to take policy chances. Because when they lose, like they’ve lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, they will go to the center to find votes. They won’t need to go right to the center voter if they won elections if the left actually showed up.
This is about the left (that doesn’t show up) wringing their hands about how to get left things (when they don’t show up), and thinking how could they possibly influence things (when they don’t show up). And the answer is pretty obvious: SHOW UP. They wouldn’t need the center double vote if the left, oh I don’t know, had showed up and the Dems won. It’s when they lose that they are forced to go to the center to find voters (who show up). Gore and Hilary were narrow losses. Imagine if the left had showed up.
You’re suggesting polling subtle
Yeah there’s the narrow interpretation again. This is not nearly so subtle as you suggest. Do they lose? Yes? Then they will go to the center to find voters. Do they consistently win? Hasn’t happened in 44 years. But they still do some left policy (ACA, IRA) despite that the ACA cost them the next elections and despite the IRA showing that it was going to cost them.
Now what would happen if they won consistently and overwhelmingly? They’d move left. They could do left things, without losing the next election. This is pretty simple.
But you have to construct an incredibly narrow pathway of interpretation to play whatever weird game of poll this or poll that. So with that, I think that’s my last message.
*Typos in my previous message fixed.
this is basically just a long ass history of saying that even when they give the left policy, the left never shows up, so it wouldn’t make any sense basically ever in the future for them to implement any leftist policy at any future point. we have to assume that they’re rational actors rather than idiots, and that they’re going to keep doing the thing that, according to you, makes them succeed. there’s no amount of local grassroots “just vote harder” -ing that is suddenly going to get those left wing voters to suddenly pop up if there isn’t any left wing policy proposals. so the democrats don’t go left because they won’t win, and the left wing voters don’t show up because there’s no left wing policy.
I also like the idea that actual populist, left wing policy implementations only ever cost them, only ever make them lose votes. also, this idea that they’d move left suddenly if they started winning, just, basically for no reason they’d start moving left, is awesome. very cool. by what mechanism would they move left? why? by what mechanism would the left actually have any leverage over them, in that circumstance? sure, they’d lose the votes, but then they’d actually have to implement left wing policy, which means they would totally be fucking over their much more important corporate and media sponsorships, and they’d also be basically eviscerating their own political power. you can see this in the very simple example of “no democrat will ever change the fptp system”, because then they would stop getting elected, because they benefit from that being the voting system. this is basically the same principle by which they won’t, say, do massive amounts of housing ownership reform.
also, what’s your opinion on serious housing reform? what do you think about that, what do you think about, say, eliminating massive rental companies, or nationalizing them, constructing a large amount of housing, and then providing it for free to people, thus making them less dependent on their job and more secure in order to take risks on, say, doing actual forms of political activism? what do you think about the same being done for healthcare? employment? can you see any reason why the people who are currently in power might not want any of that to actually occur? can you think of any possible reason why those people which are currently in power might not want that shit to exist precisely because they have been selected by those systems as a product of their reinforcement of those systems? to break it down more, perhaps, why do you think CEOs tend to be incompetent assholes? is it just because of some like, cosmic trick, or is there perhaps a system there that’s going to reward incompetent assholes over people who actually have beliefs?
also, I find it funny how you’re accusing the guy you’re talking to of having a narrow interpretation of history, that they’re construing everything to work around, but then you’re also turning around and saying “it’s just so simple: the left never shows up, so the democrats will never go to the left!”, and then retroactively giving an incredibly simplified and narrow retelling of history in order to support your point. any mention of the absolute slew of right wing legislation, that any of these people have pushed, which might be a reason why the left might not be showing up for them?
we have to assume that they’re rational actors rather than idiots
They will do what
peoplevoters want. Sorry but have you lost sight of the foundations of the government so much that you forget that it’s the voters? Because you talk like that. Right now what the voters want is the Dems only in control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and senate) for 4 years every 24 fucking years. The voters are voting for brutally slow progress. Want faster progress? Then be the voters that vote for faster progress by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.In addition to that, I really think Dems want left policy. They do it when they can despite it costing them elections. According to your logic they would never have done the ACA, or green energy, or EVs, or union empowerment (inb4), or student debt forgiveness, or Chips act, or Pact act, etc, etc. But they did, and it cost them.
left wing voters to suddenly pop up if there isn’t any left wing policy proposals
That’s the point of this discussion. I’m saying if left non-voters want to actually be effective, they have to show up first. Because when they don’t, the Dems well just go to the center voters. Why do I feel like I have to emphasize voters again. Left wing non voters can’t play mexican standoff. They will lose because the Dems have an out: the center voter.
they’d move left suddenly
It won’t be sudden, it will be slow. But it will be a ton faster than current progress when they only have 4 years of control (of all 3, house of reps, senate, and presidency) every 24 fucking years.
what mechanism would they move left? why?
Yeah you’ve lost sight of the very mechanism of government. Already said: Sorry but have you lost sight of the foundations of the government so much that you forget that it’s the voters? Because you talk like that. Right now what the voters want is the Dems only in control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and senate) for 4 years every 24 fucking years. The voters are voting for brutally slow progress. Want faster progress? Then be the voters that vote for faster progress by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
also, what’s your opinion on serious housing reform
What you’re doing here with endless questions is what I call fishing. You’re fishing for something that you disagree with me on so that you can comfortably ignore everything I say. Part of a reverse gish gallop (I’m not saying you’re alt right, I’m saying it’s the same strategy.)
also, I find it funny how you’re accusing the guy you’re talking to of having a narrow interpretation of history, that they’re construing everything to work around, but then you’re also turning around and saying “it’s just so simple: the left never shows up,
There is a difference between a narrow interpretation of an issue (I did not say history) constructed so that, well I already said: so that you can walk out on it and say look at this very narrow interpretation, explain this narrow interpretation. He demands an explanation of that very narrow interpretation, and only that narrow interpretation. So that other things can not be brought in. It pulls away from the big picture and goes into this narrow path, and demands an explanation and rebuttal on only that very narrow path.
That is different than what I did which is explaining things, simply.
Honestly you’re pretty much doing the exact same thing. So this will be my only reply. Peace.
They will do what people voters want.
https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf
In addition to that, I really think Dems want left policy.
ACA, or green energy, or EVs, or union empowerment (inb4), or student debt forgiveness, or Chips act, or Pact act, etc, etc
Romneycare, a 5% token movements towards a correct approach, and also private industry funding, a good single issue, a post-covid handout, and more private industry funding mechanisms.
Yeah, see, that’s why I asked you those questions about what your actual political affiliations are. What is your definition of “left policy”? Economic stimulation by approving more contracts for private industry is not “left policy”, neither are means tested, highly qualified welfare programs. What do you think about the democrats moving to the right on the border, and doing absolutely nothing to combat the insane slew of lies that the republicans have been spouting for, say, the last 30 years? And they are lies, indeed. All this bluster over 3.3%, or maybe 14%, of the population, which is according to every study on the planet pretty much better behaved and provides more in to the system than your average citizen. I have basically never seen a democratic candidate actually give out any statistics to counter that narrative. They have only shifted further rightward.
Yeah you’ve lost sight of the very mechanism of government.
No. I fully understand that outside of a couple gerrymandered swing states that vote for electoral college members which then go on to maybe vote for who they have been told to vote for by the public, votes do not matter. I understand that this is something which is by design.
What you’re doing here with endless questions is what I call fishing. You’re fishing for something that you disagree with me on so that you can comfortably ignore everything I say.
Yes. “This does not help your cause” -Guy who hates your cause
If you don’t agree with the core positions, then we probably need to be talking about those core positions more than we need to be talking about who to vote for.
Honestly you’re pretty much doing the exact same thing. So this will be my only reply. Peace.
Why even engage in the conversation in the first place, then?
While I don’t necessarily disagree with your gist here, I don’t think it is accurate to characterize the ACA as “of the left”. It was just Romneycare expanded to the Federal level, the “left” couldn’t even get the “public option” included in the final bill. The whole thing was successful in that it got health insurance to a whole lot of people who didn’t have it before, an outcome supported by many or even most on the left, but the actual ACA isn’t really something leftists wanted or genuinely support as anything more than a stopgap on the path to actual reform. If the ACA actually did things to drive rent seeking behavior out of the health care industry and guarantee universal access it would be a great example of the phenomenon you are describing. The actual ACA is a much better example of the Republicans (and the the health care industry) running circles around the Dems during that era than of the Dems implementing leftist policy,
Want more? Then vote so that Manchin types can’t water it down. Nevermind that the ACA wouldn’t have passed without a super majority.
Taking that attitude you’re showing you’re not here in good faith.
If you want good faith arguments perhaps don’t start with condescending comments about “kindergarten” level civics and have enough charity to at least start from the premise that it might actually be you who’s wrong rather than just assuming that any argument you don’t agree with must be the result of your interlocutor being kindergarten level dumb.
You construct a twisted, narrow interpretation so that you can walk out on it and say look at this very narrow interpretation, explain this narrow interpretation.
Followed by…
Do they lose? Do they win?
Broad and wide-ranging narrative … anyone?
And then you go on to tell a story about what each president ‘would have done’ which, I presume you must have gained from direct personal conversations with them, unless… Oh, you’re not just believing things they tell the newspapers… You sweet summer child…
what would happen if they won consistently and overwhelmingly? They’d move left. They could do left things, without losing the next election. This is pretty simple.
It might seem simple to you. But it contains two hidden premises and two logical flaws.
The first hidden premise is that they actually want to move left (and so would take an opportunity to do so). You’ve not yet made a case that they do. A scattering of slightly-left-of-neocon policies is not very convincing.
The second premise is that each event is a response to the last and not to any of the hundred other factors in American politics at the time. Again, just showing one thing followed another does not prove it was caused by it.
The first logical flaw is that you’ve still not provided a mechanism by which successive democratic campaign teams know somehow why they lost, that it was their slightly leftist policies and not, again one of the other hundred factors in politics at the time.
The second logical flaw is that you’ve still not explained why democrats need an actual election to find out that lots of leftists will vote for them. Why can’t they just poll, like everyone else does? They presumably rely on polls to tell them what policies these non-voters want, so why do they need an actual election victory to learn that in four year’s time these people will likely vote for them. Why can’t they just ask? That’s the normal way all other political strategies are worked out - focus groups, polls, town meetings… You’re singling out willingness to vote as a fact about potential voters which is somehow inaccessible to the democrat strategists without the proof of an actual election win, but assuming other facts, like the policies they’d like, can be ascertained. Why?
Great breakdown. Polls show people want progressive policies. However that goes against Capital interests which are the main concern of neoliberalism.
Indeed.
Four step process to uncontested neoliberal corporate bliss…
- Set up a folk-devil who must be stopped at all costs.
- Promote the idea that anyone even vaguely progressive must vote for you even if they disagree with you, in order to keep the folk-devil out.
- Promise to support literal genocide, and watch as your scheme has self-identified leftists falling over themselves spending the majority of their energy in-fighting with other leftists to ensure you have the power to make good on that promise.
- Enjoy your retirement on million dollar public speaking engagements and corporate executive positions.
They win the last election and they are still moving to the center. They only aim for the center because they know the left has nowhere else to go.
Biden won, enacted some decent legislation. And what was his thanks for those policies? Lost the house in the midterm election, and polls showed that he was going to lose the election.
Harris saw that, saw the polls, and rightfully won’t run on anything left. Won’t say anything. What she actually thinks and wants? Who knows. But she correctly stfu.
The administration in power always loses the midterms. The fact that they didn’t lose as badly as people thought was considered a Democratic victory. He was going to lose the election for other reasons, namely being super old and having it be obvious, and being all-in on supporting a genocidal apartheid state doesn’t help, but I’m sure it’s more the old thing, since Kamala doesn’t seem to be facing that same backlash to the same degree.
He still lost it, and without all 3 of presidency, house of reps, and senate, Dems can’t do much. They need all 3 to pass anything. Old? Sure, and I think he should have never tried for a second term. But he still passed decent legislation and the left wasn’t going to show up, despite his successes. You even saw Jill Biden say that one debate performance doesn’t undo his successes in office, but the voting left didn’t seem to care. So what did Kamala learn? You don’t get elected on left platforms, and you don’t get thanks for left legislation. She won’t say a single word because it will cost her the election.
If the left voters show up, then guess what? More left policies will be adopted.
Why? A left vote is worth 1 (because they wouldn’t have otherwise voted right), a centre vote is worth 2 (because it’s also a vote away from the other party). So it doesn’t matter how many on the left “show up” their votes simply aren’t worth as much as centre voters.
That’s the argument given. Centre votes are worth double. The corollary is that they’ll always be the target demographic.
Yeah same thing as the other message. You’re constructing a narrow path of interpretation when it’s really quite simple. Do they win? Do they lose? Anyway, it was explained in my other reply.
Then with a supermajority the dems will talk about bipartisanship and you’ll watch the slowest change ever.
Fuck that. Post trump they can GTFO.
just like obama when they could have passed universal healthcare the dems stalled until the next election cycle
I recall they only had like 8 months of a super majority (if you include Manchin) before Ted Kennedy died in office and was replaced by Scott Brown.
Americans: … what’s that? … (Fox news blaring in the background) … are you sure?
Fox is one of the greatest atrocities to ever hit the airwaves. I do wonder how much of our recent national damage is directly attributable to it. Not a majority, most likely. But a non-negligible chunk.
Obligatory: I FUCKING HATE PROPAGANDISTS!
Fox “news” primetime is literally the two minutes hate from 1984. There is just a rotating Goldstein of the month.
If you see a Fox News viewer in public, when the TV flips on you can see them drool
Vote for supporters of ranked choice voting
Early voted today in AZ. Straight blue! I was the first person in line in my county in one of the 3 precincts opening early today. 💪
The real MVP right here! You’re the best!
Big Sausage Energy fr
Thanks BigFatNips
Thanks. It is everyone’s responsibility.
Decisions are made by those who show up, it’s as simple as that.
You may hate it, but the Republicans are definitely better at getting people in line, both literally and figuratively. They turn up and vote even if they don’t like the candidate because… that’s their party. And it’s the only one that they feel represents them.
Meanwhile a lot of Democrats stay home because the candidate isn’t the one they wanted, doesn’t support everything they want, is too old/young, etc. There’s this attitude of ‘if I can’t have my perfect candidate, I’m staying home out of protest.’
I get it. Every voter wants a perfect candidate. But perfect is the enemy of good, as the saying goes.
I always look at it like this: if I vote, I might not always get the outcome that I want, but at the very least I’m nullifying the vote of a person on the other side.
If the other guy shows up and you don’t? That’s how you lose rights.
Be someone who shows the fuck up.
I show up every time and it feels like people still make decisions for me.
What keeps me voting is realizing that real life is disappointing and I’ll never be happy.
I know it’s tough, but try not to give in to pessimism. A better life is possible. It seems far and out of reach now, but it can be done. When people get too pessimistic, that’s when they don’t do anything.
Every voter wants a perfect candidate.
I’m so tired of this line, as if progressives don’t like the Democratic Party because of a 5% difference in policy opinions.
Our options for President for the past 30-40 years have been fascist capitalist or capitalist willing to compromise with fascists. To those who actually care about worker’s rights or the environment of the planet we live on, it’s a difference between a candidate who agrees with you on 0%, or one who agrees with you on 2%, but only the policies that don’t hurt capitalism.
It’s not a case of letting perfect be the enemy of the good, it’s a case of the lesser evil IS STILL FUCKING EVIL. Fascism now and fascism in 4-8 years still results in fascism; how are we supposed to be excited to vote when those are the only options we are ever allowed to pick between?
Jesus Christ. Do you know how the Republicans have turned America into a right-wing hellscape?
Incrementally.
They inched the Overton Window right every time they won. Every time some egg said “If nobody’s offering universal healthcare I’m not voting” they get to set the terms.
They’ve been doing it for decades now.
Time to start inching it back.
The Democrats have helped incrementally, too, by not winding back their policies and generally giving in to their rhetoric. It’s insane that there’s no way to vote against genocide in this election, that they just removed the death penalty from their platform, that she is no longer for the Green New Deal or M4A, that they signed the crime bill, etc. The Democrats have been complicit in this ratchet effect as well.
I get it; the entire system sucks. Even here in the Netherlands with a dozen political parties, you rarely get the government you want. But there’s still things you can do even if you really don’t want to vote in this particular election.
You can support groups that promote voting reform, like ranked choice voting. You can and should vote in all local elections. You can even RUN in many local elections, since candidates frequently run unopposed. You can help inform others about the voting process and get poorly represented groups to vote. If all else fails, there’s always the option of shooting your least favorite politician or doing an Oklahoma City. But try those other things first, OK?
Hyperbole at its finest. Don’t vote or vote for Trump and see how things turn out.
Yes, let’s reward the Cheney DNC so we can see how far right they’ll go and how many war crimes they can do! Remember, they can’t take away your rights if there’s a (D) next to the name!
Republicans are definitely better at getting people in line
That’s also really really strongly due to their efforts at voter suppression for the dems. It’s so much easier to show up to vote if you can just hop over to the local polling station, go right in, stand in line for like 5 minutes and leave while many urban voters in blue or especially black areas have to stand in line for hours and might still get turned away because their names have recently been purged from the voter rolls.
People don’t vote because politicians don’t materially benefit them. When politicians provide significant support to regular ass people in way that materially benefit them you will see more voters turn out, not when you whine to them about them not voting. If politicians wanted this to occur, our state reps and their staffers would be in our work places, talking to people, giving them reasons to be involved with the political party apparatus, and providing material aid to the poorest and least represented among us with their own hands. We have bad voter turn out because shitty, myopic politics breeds political disinvestment. This post has it pretty much exactly backwards.
Anecdotally, I have friends from MA who don’t give one fuck about politics. Haven’t voted in years despite me telling them, messaging them with voter registration status, and locations, giving them every resource they need to make it as easy as possible. None of it mattered. Two of these friends in the last year have told me they want to vote for Governor Healy because they intend to use the free community college program, unprompted. Went out of their way to tell me. Another friend told me they like their state rep because they showed up at a union rally for their union and my friend realized from talking to the politician personally that the rep was a socialist who just happened to have a D next to their name.
*assuming you live where your vote matters
Me voting or not voting for the Democrats here in California doesn’t effect the election one bit
I still did it because they ditched the shitty old guy who said he wasn’t going to run again, but I’m not pretending I’ve actually done anything in doing so
No. There are plenty of down ticket races even if your vote for the presidential candidate doesn’t matter, it might very well make the difference between a good School Board candidate in your school district or a right wing book banning bible pushing nut job
It might be the difference between a normal city council or a far-right Nazi take over of your city council.
Just. Fucking. Vote.
There are plenty of down ticket races
No shit Sherlock? Post says “if you want to avoid trump” so I’m commenting on that race
But thanks for the condescension, it’s always cute
I don’t mind the kids being force fed the Bible. At least they’re getting something in their bellies.
