this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
297 points (99.7% liked)

196

16576 readers
1947 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 40 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The Democrats can't do as much as you want them to when there's a very real chance of losing the election to the Republicans. If you want change, then vote. If you want policy 475, you need to vote for policy 1 first.

[–] stembolts@programming.dev 35 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The American system of government is the blame game. For example, few people seem to remember that during Obama's 8 years in office he had the government for 10 months.

During the 86 other months Republicans exploited that by simultaneously stonewalling everything while going to the media and questioning why the democrats aren't doing more for the American people. It is a masterfully effective underhanded tactic.

I also agree that everyone should vote. When more people vote, regardless of political affiliation, democrats win bigger. I don't know why that is true, but it is. So yes, everyone vote!

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (3 children)

It’s the other way around. They not gonna do what u want them to because they know you’ll have to vote for them because of their fear politics. Let them know they’re not getting your vote. They’re gonna lose their jobs. Then they’ll try harder.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Dude no. They need to win elections which means they can't lose to Republicans. That's it. When they know they can't lose, they will move on to better policies. They aren't going to magically move left when there's a very real chance of losing the election. Sorry to say, you're twisting yourself into knots trying to justify not voting.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why on earth would they move left if there's no risk of losing? They want to enact right wing policies because that's what their donors pay them to do.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Your question is complete backwards. They can't move left because there is a real chance of losing. You win elections from the center. If you have a risk of losing that means you stay firmly in the center.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 15 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You win elections from the center.

That's absolute nonsense. The number of people who are politically engaged swing voters is very marginal. Meanwhile, a full third of the country doesn't vote. You win elections through turnout, and you get turnout by supporting popular policies that actually benefit people.

Alternatively, you can win elections through money, if you can convince the rich that you'll govern in their interests, against the interests of the poor.

The democrats, broadly speaking, prefer to win through the latter method because they get more money that way, but that doesn't make it the most effective method. They just have a loud enough signal to convince people it's the only method.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You literally win from the middle. One switched vote is worth double from the fringes, because you take away from the other party and get one yourself.

And if you run against incumbents, you have to be even more in the middle - think Clinton and Biden. Biden had to run center, although he's acting further left than what he ran on.

Sorry but you're just trying to justify not voting, by pretending that not voting will magically make the party move left. It won't. It's fantasy. Not voting means they will meet in the middle even harder.

You want change? Make the Dems win resoundingly and successively.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Why on earth would you bring up Clinton to support your argument? She did exactly what you described and somehow managed to lose what should've been an extremely easy election. Biden managed to win by a very narrow margin in another extremely easy matchup. Not included in your data set are any candidates who ran more to the left, such as Obama (though he governed far to the right of how he ran).

There's so many more disengaged voters than swing voters that it doesn't matter if swing voters are worth more. Besides, swing voters don't just vote according to a rational policy calculus of centrism. A lot of it is vibes or superficial nonsense.

The dems are not going to magically move left, against their donors interests and the interests they've repeatedly demonstrated they hold, just because they win. Especially if that win comes through unconditional support from the left. They are not your friends, and they don't share your interests. They're careerists pursuing their own advancement.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Bill Clinton is the one that ran against an incumbent. He had to run center. Against Bush senior. Bill Clinton. The one that was actually president. Bill.

Hillary Clinton thank you for bringing that up. She ran on climate war/map room. That and the attacks lost it. But what do you think the window would be if Hillary Clinton won? Easy, it would be further left. You're making my case for me.

And what did the protest no vote do? That's right, fucking handed it to Trump. You're making my case for me

Instead Trump won and guess what happened to the Overton window? It went off the cliff to the right. And it's still there because he won and could win again. You're making this too easy.

Disengaged voters you say. Hey I wonder what they could do. Hmmmmmmmm. Hmmmmm. Hmmmmm. I think they could, wait for it, vote! If you want policy number 475 you have to vote for policy 1 first. That's exactly what happened with GOP, they voted for decades and they finally got roe overturned. You keep making my case.

Besides, swing voters don't just vote according to a rational policy calculus of centrism. A lot of it is vibes or superficial nonsense.

Doesn't fucking matter. They vote. And guess what, that means they get heard. You keep making my case for me.

Agree the Dems aren't going to magically move left like you think they're going to when you don't vote. They will move with the voters. But you don't like this so you try to say it's all donors and whatever else. It's unbelievable. The way you get things is to change is to vote. This is so incredibly easy but you want to make up excuses and do mental gymnastics. Get dem in the whitehouse and majority in Congress for 20 years straight and watch it fucking move. You do that by voting.

Oh I see you're from .ml. it'll just be more excuses and mental gymnastics. Ciao.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Hillary Clinton thank you for bringing that up. What do you think the window would be if Hillary Clinton won? Easy, it would be further left. You’re making my case for me.

Instead Trump won and guess what happened to the Overton window? It went off the cliff to the right. And it’s still there because he won and could win again. You’re making this too easy.

It is, in fact, very easy to have a conversation when you're only having it with yourself.

If you agreed with everything I said, do you think that would make you more correct or less correct? That's right, more correct. Therefore I'm right. You're making my case for me, this is too easy, blah blah blah.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Lmao thank you for confirming your mental gymnastics! You don't even make sense. Kinda figured after you saw your mistake with Bill Clinton. I did some edits though. Ciao for real and you don't get to complain when you don't vote.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago

Weird that I wouldn't make sense to you considering I just did the exact same thing you did.

[–] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You seem knowledgeable enough about the topic to realize that it’s not as cut-and-dry as you’re making it out to be.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Elections are massively complicated and a single strategy doesn’t determine who wins and loses. You and the other commenter could both be right (or wrong), depending on the context or circumstances.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago

Sure, there could be some specific cases where they're correct. But if you can't say anything about elections unless it's generalizable to all circumstances, then you can't say anything about elections at all. I'm speaking generally.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You are assuming that leftward momentum is what the democrats want. I am sure a couple do, but the establishment democrats showed their hands when the super delegates prevented actual progress, and shut down referendums that won to establish ranked voting on state’s levels. Without motivation to change they will not because they got theirs.

And no i don’t want fucking trump being president, using his presidency to quash his lawsuits, damn Ukraine, damn Palestine, sell off what little progress our civilization made to fighting climate change, remove further rights from the vulnerable groups, establishing Christianity as the national religion, kill off all our agent for money, establish the president breaking the law as a with qualified immunity, rewriting the history books, burn and silence dissenting thought, further pollute the judicial system with cronies, and pardon neo nazi criminals.

It just sucks knowing that no matter what i do the US is directly responsible for yet another genocide, and in 4 years it will be de santis or who knows trump running yet again, and it will again be “now is not the time to rock the boat, vote blue no matter who, or else “”democracy”” will end…again” now and forever more as justification to block actual change and then force conservative democrats to win the primaries.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It's the Overton window. If the right ideas keep losing, then the left ideas have more say. If the right wing ideas don't win you elections, they slowly fade away. If left wing ideas win you elections, the the whole Overton window goes to which left wing ideas will win.

Like dude you just listed off the entire Overton window that they're appealing to because it won them an election and might win them another election. Like you just did it! Why do those talking points even exist? Because it won and could win again. Shut those out by voting. Tell them resoundingly that there's no chance of winning on those ideas, and then the Overton window can move left.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

The Overton windows slides right during a Democrat presidency. Just slower

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Dude you didn't address anything I said, just a glib catchphrase that's frankly wrong. But in good faith I'll discuss:Depends on the circumstances. Clinton and Biden running against incumbents had to be even more center, although Biden is acting more left than what he ran. But you want to suggest Obama with Obamacare was right? Yeah no. And Biden is left than what he ran: IRA, chips act, marijuana, etc. Sorry your little catchphrase is inaccurate.

And if you want even more inaccuracy, get dem president and Congress majority for 20 years straight and watch it move. Because, as I said, you can't do what you want when there's a real chance of losing. Then more left ideas in the party get more attention and traction. Which is, you guessed it, the Overton window.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago
[–] Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It’s naive to think that voters have more influence on policies than donors/lobbyists. If democrats win every election then capitalists will just donate more to make sure their needs are met. All politicians are corrupted by huge sums of money.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

While there's some legitimacy in money winning elections, you know what it comes down to? Fucking votes.

[–] Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I feel like you didn’t read my comment at all. Because your point is completely irrelevant to what I said.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I addressed it. I'll try again. The ultimate deciding factor in elections is votes. Literally votes. Election night isn't spent tallying who raised the most money, it's literally counting who got the most votes.

[–] Sop@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Again not relevant at all to what I said. My comment wasn’t about election results but about policies. It doesn’t matter who wins an election because capitalists will always make sure to donate to the winner in order to decide their policies.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Ah I see you're trying to ignore the entire Overton window point. Which is what I was talking about from the start. Votes change the Overton window dude. It's really that simple. If you want the Overton window to change, you vote.

You're conflating a shit ton. Do capitalists care about abortion? No. Rich donors probably didn't really care either. Guess what changed it? Fucking votes. They picked that topic because it gets votes.

Votes determine policy and the Overton window because votes win elections.

And that is what I said: while there's some legitimate talking point in money helping to win elections, what ultimately wins elections is, wait for it, votes. Votes are the ultimate decider for elections and yes policy.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They aren't using enough fear politics. The entire planet should be afraid of a fascist United States. Trump will tank the global economy. Trump will be more hostile to other nations than even liberal imperialists. There is no upside.

It's even better for accelerationists if the systemfails under liberals. If it fails under a fascist, liberals can just claim it only failed because fascists gained control.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Biden and democrats are taking advantage of this situation to do whatever they want because people are afraid not to vote for them. A lot of people are waking up tho and democrats need to either do what the people want or risk losing the vote. Not to Trump, just no vote. There will always be a Trump. It might take 4 years of Trump for the world to see how our voting system needs to be reformed and the two party system torn apart. Democrats are not for the people. They’re for the dollar bill.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

No fucking shit genius. Ofc they're taking advantage of the situation. That's what the more left wing party does. However, not voting is forfeiting your choice. Unless you have a large, organized coalition who otherwise would vote, boycotts aren't very effective. This is especially true when the worse choice is about as bad as choices can get. Unfortunately, there's no use explaining project 2025 when your opinion isn't based on facts.

You think I disagree with you out of ignorance, but it's your wistful thinking creating fake options. You're just coping with the depressing reality. You believe not voting for Biden is an option because you really want there to be another way. You need to recognize your actual situation before you can find a way out of it. Acknowledgement is not the same as saying things are good and should continue.

IS =/= OUGHT!

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Not participating is absolutely a choice. You’re brainwashed and afraid.

I don’t you disagree with you about my feelings about the Democratic Party. I disagree with your playing into fear politics instead of opting out. The cycle has to end at some point even if it takes a huge wake up call.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (7 children)

Yeah, the wake up call that'll put people like me to sleep forever 🙃

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In what way will voting for a fascist end the cycle? By making us not be able to vote anymore? Yeah, real good option you're pushing for there.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I never said I was voting for anybody. And you’ve clearly bought into the scare tactics. You honestly think the president has the power to stop voting? Relax. Take 4 more years of Trump and get it over with. Dems are losers. They need to wake up and give the people what they want instead of relying on scare tactics.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, and you thinking he can't is giving American democracy too much credit. You have more faith in the system than any lib if you think that unironically.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You’re catastrophizing. Understandable, but not realistic and not healthy. Really think it through. How could the president put an end to voting in the United States? Especially in 4 years. If you think that’s possible, think about why democrats haven’t then tried to reform the electoral college. Because they don’t want true democracy either.

Yes Trump would swing a lot of things right, but not to the extent that democrats are scaring people into believing.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You share the lack of perspective that most libs have. You don't understand just how unstable our world is. You have a lack of imagination, similar to me when I was younger, mostly because my parents kept me sheltered from the world they grew up in. Growing up poor and Latino in dysfunctional households motivated them to protect me.

Unlike you, I did eventually learn how dangerous the world can be without suffering the worst of it. I read about history, learned about political science, and talked with people who actually remember how terrible the world can be. The challenges we are nearly guaranteed to face in the next decade will come as such a brutal shock to people who've never been in danger.

You think Trump swinging "a lot of things right" isn't a big deal because you're privileged as fuck, even compared to me. I grew up near your city, and there was a common sense of ignorance that I noticed. People just didn't have the same financial concerns my family had. I always felt like an outsider in terms of class, even if the people were supposedly progressive. Get Out felt so relatable to me because I'd spent my life around out of touch liberals like you.

You're not ill intentioned, just privileged, protected by the consequences of politics. You're calling me hysterical because you're a Dunning-Kruger champagne socialist. I'm not trying to play oppression Olympics, as I'm privileged too, but you don't understand how dangerous and brutal the world is.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Says the person who wants to vote for a man who is literally actively aiding in the murder of innocent children and families. Take your sob story to a therapist and stop projecting your own lived experience onto people you know nothing about. I’m worried about you. Do you need help?

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yes actually, but you think us suffering because of a profit driven healthcare system is an individual mental health problem rather than a collective political one. You wouldn't lift a finger to help me in any way. You don't care about my well-being, only belittling me so you can dismiss me as hysterical.

Keep on repeating your comfortable narratives about there being a better alternative to Biden. At least your vote won't make a difference. Who knows, maybe you'll stay home and not vote for conservative democrats at the local level?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Takios@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 6 months ago (7 children)

It's the other way around in my country. The more votes the middle and left parties lost, the further they moved to the right in an attempt to claw back votes. But then there was a huge protest campaign against the right and the right started losing votes in our regular surveys (though still much too strong).
So I urge you to vote for your option that is not regularly talking about using fascist methods and undoing gained freedoms "on day one".

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Woozythebear@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

We voted for Biden and gave him the house and senate and he still couldn't pass a pathetic $15 minimum wage... stop making excuses for them like someone voting harder will make them any less incompetent liars.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

But but but but but but but but but but Biden bad!!1!1

Looks like he did $15 minimum for federal workers, ran out of time, and is asking Congress to do it for everyone (you know, because he currently doesn't have the house, you know because of votes). Lol looks like you should take your own advice and stop making excuses for yourself.