I think you’ve misunderstood me. Last time the Democrats lost an election, you got Joe Biden as the next candidate. Why would making the Dems lose this election produce a more progressive candidate?
Sure there is, but too many progressive voters just seem to be unwilling to act to get them. It takes long term planning.
Let’s look at Barack Obama, a man whose political career to President was considered to be extremely fast, and who was considered to be very inexperienced and a shockingly fast rise.
He was elected President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, 18 years before he would become President of the USA. In 1992 he directed a voter registration project/drive in Chicago that was successful enough to be big news. In 1996 he was elected to the Illinois State Senate, and in 2000 he lost the primary for a US Representative position.
But here’s a very important part: in 2003 he became chairman of a state committee when Democrats regained a majority. This allowed him to have some legislative successes, specifically in the field of racial profiling. Hmm, that ain’t gonna be important in Illinois ever again, is it?
With that legislative success, he was able to win the primary for Senate, but even then, this essentially required the incumbent in that slot to be gone. Then he was a Senator for merely four years before becoming President. And also notably for those who act like the DNC simply anoints candidates, he beat Hillary in the primary, despite her being favored by most of the entrenched elite of the party.
And the important thing to remember is this was a startlingly fast political career, considered by everyone to be a meteoric rise, an outlier. He was in politics for only 12 years before becoming President, though he did politics adjacent things even earlier. A more expected career would probably go for 20 to 30 years before becoming President.
So you want voter action for more progressive candidates? It starts a quarter century ago, in state-level offices like the Illinois Senate. It starts by getting those candidates elected over goddamn decades.
Politics is like farming, you can’t show up in harvest season, look around, and go ‘where are all the crops?’ and then be pissy that there’s gonna be a famine this winter. You gotta show up in the planting season, plant those crops, take care of them, keep them healthy and watered and fertilized as they grow, so you can finally get your food when harvest time comes.
So you want to complain about the lack of candidates, well here’s my question: where the fuck were you all in planting season a quarter of a century ago? Cause these crops take a goddamn while to grow.
The point is his career took twelve years and it was considered a meteoric rise, incredibly fast. You want better candidates, start working for it and help them make their way through the system.
Who’s your representative in your state house? Who was their primary opponent? Did you vote in that primary to try and get a more progressive candidate? Have you worked to get your local community to support more progressive candidates in small offices, so they can eventually become high level candidates?
There’s a chance you can answer those questions and have done what you can, but the vast, vast majority of progressives seem to just complain that no perfect candidate has been delivered to them despite no effort on their part.
Did you vote in that primary to try and get a more progressive candidate? Have you worked to get your local community to support more progressive candidates in small offices, so they can eventually become high level candidates?
Yes, actually
The point is his career took twelve years and it was considered a meteoric rise, incredibly fast.
Right, because he was willing to be a corporate shill who happened to be generationally charismatic. Which is what Buttigieg tried (and failed) to replicate. And is what Bill Clinton successfully did in 1992 - though he had a longer career prior to that than either 08 Obama or 2020 Buttigieg
The system and ruling class are highly opposed to socialists. And are even opposed to social democrats like the Nordic countries or FDR. We live in an oligarchic empire in decline. Which means that fascism is unfortunately very likely in our lifetimes - if not via Trump in 2024, then likely via someone else in 2028 or 2032. The fact that we’ll soon be dealing with increased millions of climate refugees, both internationally and from gulf states like Florida, will only accelerate such devolution.
So telling people to vote harder is very insufficient. People are correct to be depressed and furious. Their futures are bleak - but not as bleak as the futures of their grandchildren
Only if you never think more than an election ahead.
So how many elections are you expecting that the Dems must lose in order to start fielding candidates you like, or for another party that does so to take their place? It doesn’t matter how many they lose if it never moves the needle your way, so you’ll have to be quite persuasive that this will achieve something that’s worth capitulating to the American right for a decade or longer.
How is that different than what lead the Republican party to trump?
Because of the actual outcomes during the four years between each election and the fact that you can protest and write and whatever else you want for improvement during that time. Your vote does have to be your entire political engagement.
Does this suck? Yes. Does the Republicans winning do literally anything to fix any of it? No. For that you need the Overton window to shift so far that the Republican party dies and the new two-party system has the Dems on the right, or you need a new electoral system. Neither of these is accomplished by the Dems losing.
Why do you think it’ll be different this time?
I don’t think it’ll be different this time because the candidates have already been picked. We already both know what the options are. Unfortunately, “no different” is a lot better than the other option. That’s why I’m advocating voting for damage control on the day. Vote against the worst option, because that’s how FPTP works.
So your hope is that by threatening to not vote, you and likeminded voters will get Biden to change his positions sufficiently for you to vote for him before the election? That’s not what you said in your first comment, and you being only one person is equally applicable to this or to what I said.
Why be mad at a social media account, when you’re apparently not mad at Biden?
Who said I’m not pissed at Biden? But I’m not talking to Biden right now.
All he has to do, is listen to his voters.
If you are stating you won’t vote for him, you’re not his voter.
If he can’t do that now, why does he deserve either of our votes?
It doesn’t matter if he deserves it or not, unfortunately. I’ve already put forward my position that in FPTP, you effectively do not vote for someone, you vote against someone.
You seem a little daft. So I’ll help explain in easier language.
Trump, bad.
Biden, bad.
If Biden win, u get 4 years to protest and complain about policy until your voice is maybe heard, and either way then see new candidate options.
If Trump win, u no get chance for new candidate after 4 years, cuz he’s a fucking psychopath and won’t give up power. And solidification of more and more power will entail recruitment of more and more zealots which is a path he has shown he is willing to take.
It will show other power hungry nutjobs coming up that the Trump method works and to get even more radical in future campaigns/movements.
Then the future zealot-Maga-NeoNazi mob will take complete control as they’ll be planted in all key aspects of government and military and police (already there most likely) and they will normalize hate and start rounding up all the types of humans they fear/dislike or that don’t agree with their views, and they’ll commit fucking genocide on your home fucking soil.
So if you vote for Biden, there is genocide but you’re not complicit simply because you pay taxes.
And if you don’t vote Biden, there is even more genocide, but possibly to people you know and love, and you are complicit because you failed to act, and you can kindly fuck off with that dumbshittery.
If a weatherman says we’re getting two feet of snow, do you get mad at them because the snow would negatively effect people’s lives?
Do you spend time and energy trying to convince them the bad thing they’re predicting is a bad thing?
You think them not talking about it means it won’t happen?
I just don’t understand what leads people to thinking like you, but I guess someone had to burn all the medicine women for witchcraft. Just didn’t expect this to make such a comeback.
Lol what a response…
Weather? Burning witches? Tha fuck are you on about?
None of that nonsense is a worry.
Didn’t quite grasp it, eh?
Kinda makes you look like you have an agenda…
Aw well, I tried.
I’m gonna say (as someone that was sucked into the psychological torture machine that was the conservative media loop in 2016) that Hillary didn’t lose for being a moderate. Trump was by far at his strongest in 2016; his insanity was a basically unknown factor and he did a legitimately great job seeming to flip the bird at ‘the system’, and the conservative propaganda machine had a LOT of points to attack Hillary with that had nothing to do with her moderate politics. Trump promised the world and had all the charisma to sell the world too, and Hillary… I honestly can’t remember anything about her platform at all.
In my personal opinion, Hillary could absolutely have won that election if the Democrats hadn’t been complacent about it. Maybe not a landslide victory, but I think it would have been a very solid win.
Hillary had a weird double-whammy of underestimating the appeal of Trump for many that led to losing control of the monster she helped make, along with having a long list of insults ready for anyone who didn’t want her to be the Democratic candidate that didn’t endear her to the voters who could have made her presidency for her. Whether it was calling them deplorables, broadly dismissing any criticism of her within the party as rooted in misogyny, or accusing them of being unrealistic idealists with pie in the sky goals and unelectable candidates, she really had a knack for taking these people and firmly putting them in the camp of “Screw her, I’m not voting for someone who treats me like that.” rather than engaging in a serious attempt to understand these voters and address their concerns.
Democrats today have certainly learned that Trump could be a serious threat, not to be dismissed out of hand. To his credit, Biden has notably not fallen into the sort of self-destructive antagonism of the electorate that is not already firmly committed. He might pay only lip service to their concerns, but I’m not aware of him blanket writing off, say, pro-Palestinian protestors en masse as antisemites that were never going to vote for him and are beyond redeem, even if he does frequently trot out manufactured claims of widespread antisemitism.
People online trying to drum up support for him don’t seem to have gotten the message that this didn’t work out so well for Hillary, and are going at it, calling people who haven’t vocally committed to Biden anything from idiots to Russian shills to Republican trolls, and claiming they hate minorities and LGBTQ+ people or whatever else occurs to them to rile up people. I don’t see that working out to their advantage, and predict it will alienate people who might have potentially been won over.
She is a moderate in the Democratic Party at this point, unfortunately. Hell, I think Reagan would be a moderate in today’s Democratic Party. All the more reason we should be running more progressive candidates.
I think you’ve misunderstood me. Last time the Democrats lost an election, you got Joe Biden as the next candidate. Why would making the Dems lose this election produce a more progressive candidate?
You are describing a ratcheting system.
There seems to be no voter action that can produce a more progressive candidate.
Sure there is, but too many progressive voters just seem to be unwilling to act to get them. It takes long term planning.
Let’s look at Barack Obama, a man whose political career to President was considered to be extremely fast, and who was considered to be very inexperienced and a shockingly fast rise.
He was elected President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, 18 years before he would become President of the USA. In 1992 he directed a voter registration project/drive in Chicago that was successful enough to be big news. In 1996 he was elected to the Illinois State Senate, and in 2000 he lost the primary for a US Representative position.
But here’s a very important part: in 2003 he became chairman of a state committee when Democrats regained a majority. This allowed him to have some legislative successes, specifically in the field of racial profiling. Hmm, that ain’t gonna be important in Illinois ever again, is it?
With that legislative success, he was able to win the primary for Senate, but even then, this essentially required the incumbent in that slot to be gone. Then he was a Senator for merely four years before becoming President. And also notably for those who act like the DNC simply anoints candidates, he beat Hillary in the primary, despite her being favored by most of the entrenched elite of the party.
And the important thing to remember is this was a startlingly fast political career, considered by everyone to be a meteoric rise, an outlier. He was in politics for only 12 years before becoming President, though he did politics adjacent things even earlier. A more expected career would probably go for 20 to 30 years before becoming President.
So you want voter action for more progressive candidates? It starts a quarter century ago, in state-level offices like the Illinois Senate. It starts by getting those candidates elected over goddamn decades.
Politics is like farming, you can’t show up in harvest season, look around, and go ‘where are all the crops?’ and then be pissy that there’s gonna be a famine this winter. You gotta show up in the planting season, plant those crops, take care of them, keep them healthy and watered and fertilized as they grow, so you can finally get your food when harvest time comes.
So you want to complain about the lack of candidates, well here’s my question: where the fuck were you all in planting season a quarter of a century ago? Cause these crops take a goddamn while to grow.
Obama is a neoliberal. I don’t want more elected politicians with his views
If I did want Obama 2.0 then I’d vote for Buttigieg. And I hate Buttigieg
Way to miss the point.
The point is his career took twelve years and it was considered a meteoric rise, incredibly fast. You want better candidates, start working for it and help them make their way through the system.
Who’s your representative in your state house? Who was their primary opponent? Did you vote in that primary to try and get a more progressive candidate? Have you worked to get your local community to support more progressive candidates in small offices, so they can eventually become high level candidates?
There’s a chance you can answer those questions and have done what you can, but the vast, vast majority of progressives seem to just complain that no perfect candidate has been delivered to them despite no effort on their part.
Yes, actually
Right, because he was willing to be a corporate shill who happened to be generationally charismatic. Which is what Buttigieg tried (and failed) to replicate. And is what Bill Clinton successfully did in 1992 - though he had a longer career prior to that than either 08 Obama or 2020 Buttigieg
The system and ruling class are highly opposed to socialists. And are even opposed to social democrats like the Nordic countries or FDR. We live in an oligarchic empire in decline. Which means that fascism is unfortunately very likely in our lifetimes - if not via Trump in 2024, then likely via someone else in 2028 or 2032. The fact that we’ll soon be dealing with increased millions of climate refugees, both internationally and from gulf states like Florida, will only accelerate such devolution.
So telling people to vote harder is very insufficient. People are correct to be depressed and furious. Their futures are bleak - but not as bleak as the futures of their grandchildren
I’ve been “planting” for 24 years and the “crops” have only gotten worse.
You are not limited to just your vote on the day of presidential elections in terms of your political engagement
It’s almost like they don’t want you to have one.
Because, they’re saying, WINNING sure didn’t do progressives any favors.
FWIW, we ran Hillary Clinton as a moderate candidate and lost.
If neither winning nor losing does progressives any favours, then there’s no issue with trying to make the least bad realistic option win
Only if you never think more than an election ahead.
If you don’t, and always blindly vote D just because it’s not R…
How is that different than what lead the Republican party to trump?
Why do you think it’ll be different this time?
So how many elections are you expecting that the Dems must lose in order to start fielding candidates you like, or for another party that does so to take their place? It doesn’t matter how many they lose if it never moves the needle your way, so you’ll have to be quite persuasive that this will achieve something that’s worth capitulating to the American right for a decade or longer.
Because of the actual outcomes during the four years between each election and the fact that you can protest and write and whatever else you want for improvement during that time. Your vote does have to be your entire political engagement.
Does this suck? Yes. Does the Republicans winning do literally anything to fix any of it? No. For that you need the Overton window to shift so far that the Republican party dies and the new two-party system has the Dems on the right, or you need a new electoral system. Neither of these is accomplished by the Dems losing.
I don’t think it’ll be different this time because the candidates have already been picked. We already both know what the options are. Unfortunately, “no different” is a lot better than the other option. That’s why I’m advocating voting for damage control on the day. Vote against the worst option, because that’s how FPTP works.
Mate, I’m one person. Not millions.
It’s not about my personal morals and how much genocide I’m ok supporting.
It’s a lot easier to change Biden’s mind about how he governs in 6 months than change millions of people’s minds about how he governs, right?
Unless you think Biden just won’t listen to his constituents even if it means letting trump back into the White House.
Do you think he doesn’t give that much of a fuck about America?
Why be mad at a social media account, when you’re apparently not mad at Biden? The one individual with the power to easily prevent trump from winning.
All he has to do, is listen to his voters.
If he can’t do that now, why does he deserve either of our votes?
So your hope is that by threatening to not vote, you and likeminded voters will get Biden to change his positions sufficiently for you to vote for him before the election? That’s not what you said in your first comment, and you being only one person is equally applicable to this or to what I said.
Who said I’m not pissed at Biden? But I’m not talking to Biden right now.
If you are stating you won’t vote for him, you’re not his voter.
It doesn’t matter if he deserves it or not, unfortunately. I’ve already put forward my position that in FPTP, you effectively do not vote for someone, you vote against someone.
Man…
If the weather channel says a tornado is coming and to go to your basement, do you ask why they’re threatening you with a tornado?
So this is an unstoppable mass movement with no actual intentions and you’re just being swept along?
You seem a little daft. So I’ll help explain in easier language.
Trump, bad.
Biden, bad.
If Biden win, u get 4 years to protest and complain about policy until your voice is maybe heard, and either way then see new candidate options.
If Trump win, u no get chance for new candidate after 4 years, cuz he’s a fucking psychopath and won’t give up power. And solidification of more and more power will entail recruitment of more and more zealots which is a path he has shown he is willing to take.
It will show other power hungry nutjobs coming up that the Trump method works and to get even more radical in future campaigns/movements.
Then the future zealot-Maga-NeoNazi mob will take complete control as they’ll be planted in all key aspects of government and military and police (already there most likely) and they will normalize hate and start rounding up all the types of humans they fear/dislike or that don’t agree with their views, and they’ll commit fucking genocide on your home fucking soil.
So if you vote for Biden, there is genocide but you’re not complicit simply because you pay taxes.
And if you don’t vote Biden, there is even more genocide, but possibly to people you know and love, and you are complicit because you failed to act, and you can kindly fuck off with that dumbshittery.
If a weatherman says we’re getting two feet of snow, do you get mad at them because the snow would negatively effect people’s lives?
Do you spend time and energy trying to convince them the bad thing they’re predicting is a bad thing?
You think them not talking about it means it won’t happen?
I just don’t understand what leads people to thinking like you, but I guess someone had to burn all the medicine women for witchcraft. Just didn’t expect this to make such a comeback.
Lol what a response…
Weather? Burning witches? Tha fuck are you on about?
None of that nonsense is a worry.
Didn’t quite grasp it, eh?
Kinda makes you look like you have an agenda…
Aw well, I tried.
So you’re saying both sides are the same? Just wanted to clarify.
I’m gonna say (as someone that was sucked into the psychological torture machine that was the conservative media loop in 2016) that Hillary didn’t lose for being a moderate. Trump was by far at his strongest in 2016; his insanity was a basically unknown factor and he did a legitimately great job seeming to flip the bird at ‘the system’, and the conservative propaganda machine had a LOT of points to attack Hillary with that had nothing to do with her moderate politics. Trump promised the world and had all the charisma to sell the world too, and Hillary… I honestly can’t remember anything about her platform at all.
In my personal opinion, Hillary could absolutely have won that election if the Democrats hadn’t been complacent about it. Maybe not a landslide victory, but I think it would have been a very solid win.
Hillary had a weird double-whammy of underestimating the appeal of Trump for many that led to losing control of the monster she helped make, along with having a long list of insults ready for anyone who didn’t want her to be the Democratic candidate that didn’t endear her to the voters who could have made her presidency for her. Whether it was calling them deplorables, broadly dismissing any criticism of her within the party as rooted in misogyny, or accusing them of being unrealistic idealists with pie in the sky goals and unelectable candidates, she really had a knack for taking these people and firmly putting them in the camp of “Screw her, I’m not voting for someone who treats me like that.” rather than engaging in a serious attempt to understand these voters and address their concerns.
Democrats today have certainly learned that Trump could be a serious threat, not to be dismissed out of hand. To his credit, Biden has notably not fallen into the sort of self-destructive antagonism of the electorate that is not already firmly committed. He might pay only lip service to their concerns, but I’m not aware of him blanket writing off, say, pro-Palestinian protestors en masse as antisemites that were never going to vote for him and are beyond redeem, even if he does frequently trot out manufactured claims of widespread antisemitism.
People online trying to drum up support for him don’t seem to have gotten the message that this didn’t work out so well for Hillary, and are going at it, calling people who haven’t vocally committed to Biden anything from idiots to Russian shills to Republican trolls, and claiming they hate minorities and LGBTQ+ people or whatever else occurs to them to rile up people. I don’t see that working out to their advantage, and predict it will alienate people who might have potentially been won over.
You call that Kissinger/Thatcher mashup monstrosity “moderate?”
She is a moderate in the Democratic Party at this point, unfortunately. Hell, I think Reagan would be a moderate in today’s Democratic Party. All the more reason we should be running more progressive candidates.
Hillary was a moderate?
In 2016 the pre election polls showed a rock paper scissors ordering.
Trump beats Hillary
Hillary beats Bernie
Bernie beats Trump
The last occurred because Bernie was a different enough candidate to attract a certain subset of Republicans.
I just assumed you didn’t think a single voter could influence an election…
For my vote to matter for president, we need a charismatic progressive, it’s the only thing that can flip my state from red.
Even if Biden pull it out and wins, there is literally zero chance Biden wins my state.
That’s just reality.
You don’t flip red states by being diet republican. Everyone that wants that is already voting R, and they’ll never vote D.
You’re not addressing his question at all.
That is bot like behaviour.