Democrats would rather lose than embrace progressives.
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
453 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23431 readers
2330 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They go for who turns out to vote. Which is, drumroll please, the center voter.
If you want them to go left, then vote for them. Show up. No one is going to court voters that never show up.
Embracing the right hasn't netted them anything and they keep doing it.
I vote every time. Don't lecture me for being unhappy just because you've got the genocide and border policy you want. Centrists blame the left they deliberately alienate for any losses, while courting Republicans who will never vote for them. They interpret any win as a mandate to move to the right.
It's the center. And they do win elections when they go to the center. That's Bill Clinton won, even Obama had to run on vague "hope", and that's how Biden won. Because the left never shows up to vote
Who said I'm centrist? I'm just saying that's where they find voters and that's where they win.
May I remind you that Dems have had all 3 of house of representatives, Senate, and presidency for only 4 of the last 24 years? They basically never win.
They win by moving to the center and basically never win. Got it.
You can look at this way: When they go left, they lose. Because the left doesn't show up. So they go center and win occasionally. As in, they win more often when they go center. So the math is clear, go center. You know this, but you want to obfuscate.
When they go left, they lose.
They don't go left at all. You just blame the left when they go to the right like you want and it fails.
Let's pull up the history, I have this saved because I have to go over it with people:
Let's run through the recent story.
Bill Clinton: After successive losses Bill figured out "it's the economy stupid". And when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you 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!
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.
Hillary Clinton: After the population hopefully warmed up with Obama, she stuck her head out just a tiny itty little bit left on climate change (that thing all the leftists care about right?) with the Map Room. And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters!
On to Biden. Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don't stick your head out left. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. He's actually been governing more from the left, but he ran center.
And people are amazed that they don't run an big left platform? Every time they stick their head out a little itsy bitsy tiny bit left they lose. And the next guy learns to go to the center to win.
Like I said.
So how do you get them to move left? By giving them victories. Consistent and overwhelming victories. 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.
Blaming Hillary's loss on one progressive idea instead of the millions of other reasons people had to not vote for her is just straight up head-in-the-sand insane.
Al Gore got straight up robbed by the SC, but even ignoring that let's not forget that was 24 years ago and climate action was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy less popular than it is now. Let's also not forget he won the popular vote.
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!
You're gonna blame the left because the Supreme Court robbed us all. Of course, you're gonna blame the left for any losses, no matter how much you have to lie about history to do so.
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.
Obama ran to Clinton's left. He had specific policies regarding healthcare, Gitmo, the environment, Roe v Wade. Americans told Clinton to take a fucking hike and went with the guy to her left. Obama won despite the efforts of Centrists. Centrists were so upset that the party nominated someone to their left that they formed a PAC to elect McCain. They failed.
Hillary Clinton: After the population hopefully warmed up with Obama, she stuck her head out just a tiny itty little bit left on climate change (that thing all the leftists care about right?) with the Map Room. And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters!
Clinton did everything in her power to alienate the left. Holy shit, you're saying Clinton lost because she wasn't far enough to the right. She might not be far enough to the right for you, but I doubt anyone will ever be.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The left "doesn't show up" when Dems go right BECAUSE THERE'S NO ONE TO VOTE FOR ON THE LEFT. If the Dems would go left, and not 'tiny little peak out from behind big oil money' left, but full blown 'here's the progressive version of project 2025 and we're going to FIGHT hard for it, even if it means ditching some of our conservative members' left, then millennials and zoomers would show up. Millennials and zoomers are overwhelmingly progressive and they show up in greater numbers than any generation before them at their age... and that's WITHOUT ever having had someone on the left to actually vote for.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Right... They basically never win... So maybe they should try a different strategy because going for the right isn't working... Clearly they aren't finding the votes there. Clinton was a different time before millennials and zoomers could vote. Obama got 10 million "extra" people to actually show up and vote... And you know what? They didn't come from the center.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Democrats abandoned the centrist voter decades ago, they dont need to solicit their votes because they will get them regardless what they do. They appeal to right of center, then after they get that they will abandon right of center. So they go further right to solicit those votes. Rince and repeat year after year. This is how the party went from people like Carter to people to the right of Reagan and Thatcher
load more comments
(11 replies)
If the left leaning voters choices are the centrist Democrats or the rightest republicans it's not too strange for them to not vote when no one really seems to represent their values. Although I think they definitely should cause the scales are tipping in the wrong direction, but it isn't their fault it's the Democrats who prefer a shaky status quo to actual leftist policy. If either party wants to drum up votes and actually pretend to be democratic they should put proportional representation as a goal for their next term. That way at least the oligarchachal tyranny of the minority could be repressed. Of course neither does cause republicans will lose and Democrats don't want to risk and actual leftist party overtaking them when Americans aren't forced into the 2 party system.
It's better to vote for a 3rd party or spoil your ballot rather than not voting at all. If you show that you will take the time to go to the polls, but will not vote for them, it sends a message. Not voting also sends a message but that message is that they shouldn't care what you think because you won't influence the election in any way.
If you want the Dems to move left, then they need to win. Because everytime they lose they go to the center to find votes. And that's where they find them.
Dems have had all 3 of house of reps, Senate, and presidency for only 4 of the last 24 years. Or 6 years of the last 32 years. Or 6 years of the last 44 years. And you're amazed that they go to the center to find voters? They need to. Because the left never shows up to vote as evidenced by your comment. And everytime they lose, like they've lost for 20 of the last 24 years, they go to the center to find votes.
You want to move the Overton window? You want things to move left? You do that by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. Not a measly 4 years every 24 years.
load more comments
(12 replies)
They don't go to the center to find votes, they go to the center to find corporate donors. There's a difference.
At the end of the election, they count votes, not donations. They need voters and that's where they go.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Not just Democrats "centrists" in basically any western nation.
Just look at macron allying with the right so the leftists that just absolutely saved him and his party from being wiped out by RN, can't form a government.
I think the best counter would be to get money out of politics. These groups and massively wealthy individuals only have power because many politicians will do anything to get that money.
Stop letting them buy influence. Make it hard to find a loophole. And actually punish people for violating campaign finance laws.
They'd win in a landslide if they brought forward a plan to make this happen... But they'd rather lose the election than lose their sugar daddy corporations.
Hillary in her campaign was focused on removing Citizens United.
After she lost, hasn't been brought back up again.
load more comments
(2 replies)
As a leftist, it absolutely boggles my mind how utterly naive and stupid other leftists and Democrats can be. No, you don't need more great policies - policies are not going to win you the election. We already have great policies.
Republicans don't give a flying fuck about policy. You know what they are really good at though? Fucking voting!
As much as I know you will hate to hear this, the only thing that is going to prevent you from Republican fascism next year is to spread the word and vote against these idiots who are poised to win in 2024. Do whatever it takes to get the apathetic voters out of their goddamn chairs and vote blue in November.
I disagree. One thing I think Democrats have been missing has been a vision for the future. The closest we got was Obama's "Hope & Change" which didn't have any real meat to it. Having a clear set of policy goals that people can get excited about will drive voter turnout, thus beating the Republicans.
I see tons of people complaining that the Democrats don't have any policies except "We're not Republicans." That on its face should be good enough, but since it's not maybe doing something else would help. And don't just make it for 2025, but a permanent change. Like how the Republicans worked for decades to overturn Roe v. Wade.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"As a leftists, I like non left policies".
That is intentionally misrepresenting what he said entirely. His point was that policies don't win elections. If they did, Republicans would basically not exist now.
Public image wins elections. Obama was only able to overcome American voters' racial biases and win 2008 because of his public speaking abilities and building his character over the course of the years beforehand. He also actually did pretty well as a president, at least significantly better than the presidents since Reagan imo, which definitely secured him the re-election regardless of his incredible charisma, but no amount of good policies in his previous campaigns could've made up for charisma.
Since Biden just dropped out, it's Kamala's job now to secure the election by improving her public image. She's already gotten on that to some extent by recently starting to emphasize how much she contributed to many of the key good policies throughout her Vice Presidency – it tells voters about what kinds of policies she supports, yes, but it's mainly a way to tell voters "hey, I've been here this entire time, I've implemented all this amazing stuff despite it never breaking the news, I'm competent and fit for the job"; the image of efficiency & competence is more important than the actual policies themselves.
A "leftie" Project 2025 counterpart would just make most voters immediately think dems (and Harris) as more divisive and even petty/retaliatory. It's stupid to think like that, yes, but voters are pretty irrational. This includes like at least 1/10 of the democrats' voterbase (and I'd wager probably a lot more in important swing states with a high suburban&rural population like Michigan) which is basically slightly conservative middle-class centrists who would prefer progressive policies (excluding some of the socially progressive ""identity politics"" as they call it) but are easily pushed into "collaborator" territory if they feel like dems start being too "radical", too "divisive", too "virtue signaling", etc. Such problems are inevitable when you brand yourself as "the party of compromise".
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I didn't care about a progressive project 2025. I want guardrails that neuter project 2025 from being an effective project 2029.
Voters have very short memories and Cheeto Mussolini losing doesn't mean that this repugnant bullshit won't be enacted in the future.
We need federal court reform.
Protections for non appointed federal employees.
Protections for women's health.
Protections for voting rights.
Protections for religions (of and from).
And probably dozens of other things to make sure project 2025 doesn't become project 2029.
We cannot wait for the religious right to act before we respond. We have to respond now. They have shown us their hand and they think we are too weak to stop them. It is time we relegate their views and ideals to the trash heap in which they belong.
Could we also do something about not allowing propaganda to be called "news"? I realize that's dicey with the 1st amendment, but we've got some smart people that should be able to figure something out.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Don't call it that.
Knowing how great democrats are at branding, they'll 100% call it that and nobody will be able to work out which is which after everyone's done muddying the waters.
Progressives are equally bad at branding and i fully expect downvotes for pointing this out.
Things like "fuckcars" and "antiwork" feed right into right-wing media.
what everybody has been waiting for a very long time
just voting blue will not work and hasn't been working nor has just voting red
load more comments
(1 replies)
I still think it's ridiculous that both candidates had a debate before they even worked out a manifesto/program. Like, I know in the US the campaigns aren't ever about policy, but they're not even trying to have that pretense.
Can we shorten it to PP2025? I feel like Progressive Project 2025 is kind of a mouthful.
Progress 2025 would be better than "peepee"
Do you work for the Democratic party? Because this sounds like something they would definately do. "Biden's PeePee2025 plan".
What would it take to implement even a part of the Nordic model social welfare here in the U.S.?
Not an economist, but I think it would take taxing corporations a fair share of the resources, human and otherwise, they enjoy.
So much wealth is misappropriated as undeserved CEO pay, and restructuring CEO pay even just a little to allow paying for greater corporate taxes will create enough revenue from taxes and implement social welfare for 100s of millions.
Housing support for families and individuals who need it, free healthcare for all, and free K-12 education for all should be a bare minimum. Moreover, if people are losing work and income due to AI, there needs to be retraining.
But why do all this? Why reduce suffering and misery? Less worry about money and health = happier lives = stronger bodies and minds = more resilient people = communities which can withstand shocks from natural or manmade disasters. In some way, having stronger communities ensures homeland security.
More than that, everything which supports the work of corporations relies on civilized society and the structure gained from civilization. These are the basics which are ignored in favor of shortsighted policy making benefiting only the greedy.
load more comments
(5 replies)
What will happen, like what's happened several times in the past, they have oppressive laundry lists like what's in project 2025 presented by Republicans to get the public disdain for such policy out of the way. The exact same thing is then taken up by Democrats several years later and voters see it as progress and fully support it.
The privatization of government has been occurring for decades now this is the exact same policy that's been presented year after year by different names. Obama called it hope and change, Trump called it draining the swamp, now it's called Project 2025. Despite its name, it's all the exact same thing.
view more: next ›