Lemdro.id

0 points

9 months ago

Also, many progressives stayed home or voted for the Green Party. Not that it is more the fault of progressives than SCOTUS, but blame aside, it’s a cautionary tale.

report

[ - ]

MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml

12 points

9 months ago

How DARE they vote for the candidate they wanted! They should be maligned!

report

[ - ]

nomous@lemmy.world

5 points

9 months ago

I wonder how the Nader voters feel.

report

[ - ]

go_go_gadget@lemmy.world

-1 points

9 months ago

I’m missing the part where people are responsible for voting for a bad candidate in the DNC primaries.

report

[ - ]

4 points

9 months ago

I’m not sure what you mean.

report

[ - ]

go_go_gadget@lemmy.world

4 points

9 months ago

You’re shaming progressives for staying home, but you aren’t casting judgement at the people who voted for a loser candidate in the primaries.

report

[ - ]

0 points

9 months ago

Yes, progressives who stay at home for the general election do not understand US democracy. The US has a 2 party FPTP system, not proportional representation. Unlike multi-party parliamentary systems, we usually have to vote for a compromise, not our top choice. If you don’t vote, you don’t “send a message”, you simply forfeit your political power. If Republicans win, and keep winning, then that’s a signal for Democrats to shift right, to try to win back the median voter.

I hate the argumentative strategy of criticizing candidates for being political “losers”. Rightwingers do that all the time. By that logic, progressives also had “loser candidates”, since many fail in the primaries. I personally don’t think Sanders, for example, was a “loser”, even if he lost in the primary.

report

[ - ]

go_go_gadget@lemmy.world

2 points

9 months ago

Yes, progressives who stay at home for the general election do not understand US democracy.

Or we do? “We lose regardless. Let’s stay home.”

I’m getting really sick of this inversion of responsibility. Moderates dominate the primaries and elect someone who doesn’t resonate with the leftists and progressives but aren’t responsible for how that candidate does in the general? They control the outcome in the primaries but aren’t responsible for what happens in the general? That makes no sense.

As the majority moderates must take the lions share of the responsibility. Where is that happening?

report

bigMouthCommie@mastodon.social

[ - ]

2 points

9 months ago

right

report

ShepherdPie@midwest.social

Show more comments

[ - ]

2 points

9 months ago

We might as well skip all the pomp and circumstance and just assign the votes automatically based on party registration. That’s how it’s done currently with the added facade of having a “choice.”

The Overton window continues to shift to the right regardless of who wins elections because there are power people benefiting from it and it’s incredibly easy to spread propaganda to the masses with tv/radio/internet.

report

[ - ]

2 points

9 months ago

What are you even talking about with your first paragraph? The result of elections aren’t predictable. In fact, they’re less predictable than ever. And what’s with “choice” in quotes: are you an election truther? That’s more of a right wing conspiracy.

That’s a pathetic cowardly take on the Overton window. What even is your point? “Let’s give up because nothing matters”? Fuck that. I’m fighting.

It’s also empirically untrue: I don’t know how you haven’t noticed that the US is going through the biggest labor movement in a generation. In the last 3 years, Dems have passed one of the most progressive agendas in a generation.

report

ShepherdPie@midwest.social

Show more comments

[ - ]

-2 points

9 months ago

That argument goes both ways. “Nader would have won if progressives hadn’t handed the election to the Republicans by throwing their votes away on Gore.” Same is true for 2016 with Bernie and Clinton.

report

[ - ]

-1 points

9 months ago

It really doesn’t go both ways. The winning presidential candidate needs to get the most votes, and most US voters are not progressive. They’re moderate, or indifferent.

I don’t know how you could say that about HRC and Sanders. That’s not even a hypothetical: they literally had a head to head match where, to my huge disappointment, HRC won. Protesting HRC helped elect Trump, and obviously that hasn’t been good for progressive interests or democracy.

report

[ - ]

maness300@lemmy.world

3 points

9 months ago

Your argument makes no sense.

You acknowledge progressives won’t vote for moderates. But what makes you think moderates won’t vote for progressives if they don’t have a choice?

Do you really believe the people who voted for Clinton wouldn’t have voted for Sanders in the general? If so, then shouldn’t the blame be on them too? If not, then can you admit you’re wrong?

report

[ - ]

-3 points

9 months ago

I’ve read your comment a few times but I’m having a genuinely hard time parsing your point.

The person I’m responding to was saying that Nader could have won if progressives voted for him instead of Gore. I pointed out that presidential candidates need a broad coalition of voters to get enough votes, not just far left progressives.

You seem to be making a totally different argument. You claim that if Nader was the only choice, then Democratic leaning moderates would have voted for him.

I don’t mean to be rude, but what is the point of this thought experiment? Nader wasn’t the only choice. Moreover, US politics in 2000 was significantly less polarized: MANY Gore voters would have definitely voted for Bush, who campaigned under “compassionate conservatism” and was seen as a moderate, over the farthest left candidate, Nader.

If Sanders had won the nomination, I think he would have kicked ass against Trump, but Sanders sadly lost. I’m trying to understand your last line: are you asking if I would blame HRC supporters for refusing to vote for Sanders in the general and allowing a fascist corrupt dictator in? Uh, yes. Obviously I would blame them. That precisely aligns with everything I’ve said.

report

ShepherdPie@midwest.social

[ - ]

4 points

9 months ago

Nah, they reiterated my point pretty well. You can’t claim that “candidate ‘A’ is the correct choice because of their broad appeal” when they wind up losing the election. Obviously, they didn’t have the most appeal. The attitude that “I picked the right person and it’s everyone else’s fault they didn’t win” is absurd. Anybody can make that argument about any candidate and be just as equally ‘correct.’

report

[ - ]

-2 points

9 months ago

That’s not what you said in the comment I responded to. You claimed that Nader could have won if progressives had voted for him instead of Gore, but there aren’t enough progressive votes.

Voting in a FPTP two party system is a coordination game, one where it is mathematically impossible for third parties to win. Pretending otherwise is sadly delusional.

It’s like you’re trying to decide which building to buy as a group to start co-op housing. Almost everyone prefers building A, but you prefer building B. If you all don’t compromise, then there is not enough money and you’re all homeless. In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don’t believe in democracy, or you’re happy with things never getting better.

report