Vote for the change you want to see.

The Republican party got remade because trumpists showed up and outvoted the party elites. No reason it can’t happen for the Left except for laziness and apathy.

If all the progressives furious about the state of affairs now had shown up for Sanders in 2016, I doubt we’d be in this hellish timeline. Sadly, he needed the young progressive vote to show up.

  • Lauchs@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    “Oh no, the bad guys ran ads against us!”

    If we can’t overcome horrific barriers like that, how on Earth do you expect wr achieve anything meaningful? Literally all we had to do was get people to show up and vote.

    • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah dude idk if you understand politics at all, so there are people. And those people get informed. Often by ads. And you see, the Clinton campaign was skirting campaign finance law by funneling money through the DNC and then taking that money for her campaign to run attack ads against a primary opponent when that money was promised to states and to whoever won the primary.

      So yes, the person who won broke the law in order to gain the upper hand to win but it’s our fault for not voting harderer. So many of yall DNC worshipers think it’s all the progressives don’t vote, or only vote in the presidential elections, meanwhile they literally turn out way higher than any other block of voters in EVERY election.

      The problem is money. Literally so much money they had to illegally funnel it through the DNC instead of a single campaign to gain that money.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        So according to your logic then, no one should worry about this logic as Harris has roughly half a billion more than trump?

        https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race

        meanwhile they literally turn out way higher than any other block of voters in EVERY election.

        I’d love to see a source for this. Especially as Clinton won 55% of the primary votes compared to Sanders’ 43%, were the progressives secretly voting for Clinton? Or do those elections not count even though, especially to a progressive, they’d matter more?

        • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Not saying money is the sole decider, but it helps. Also the difference between what you can donate to a candidate (like $3000) and what you can donate to the DNC (like $40000) is… quite large. Like 12x the amount of money… Kamala does not have 12x the amount of money as trump.

          Also, you really think there’s just like… two blocks of voters in the primaries… and they’re exactly equal in number, and exactly spread evenly between all states and districts? Progressive/leftist/whatever you wanna call the “far left” makes up a fairly small amount, but one that literally turns out in higher percent than any other voting block. It does not mean they outnumber EVERYONE ELSE COMBINED.

          https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/05/americans-at-the-ends-of-the-ideological-spectrum-are-the-most-active-in-national-politics/

          Here’s some data from Pew Research on it. You can look for some others they’ve done on similar stuff.

          • Lauchs@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Appreciate the Pew link! I’d note thought that it talks about the general election, not primaries.

            If the progressives don’t outnumber the moderates and centrists even within the Democratic party, then that seems a pretty good indication that American politics is roughly in line with American attitudes, which would mean democracy is working as it should.

            Here’s the thing, Sanders got 43% of the primary vote iirc and Clinton got 55. This happened, despite the middle age and elderly voters showing up in significantly larger numbers than the young, presumably progressive ones. If the young voters had shown up and their vote patterns held, Sanders would likely have had a comfortable win.