What democrats do does matter. That’s why we shouldn’t do the GOPs job for them by sowing apathy for democrats. Because that leads to the GOP gaining power. That’s why FUD exists.
Whatever apathy was down, Democrats did it to themselves. Our job right now is to crush the damn establishment that is intent on continuing to do it. They are trying to throw out a million reasons why this loss was anything but their fault, just so they can go back to business as usual. That cannot happen again.
If you think infighting hurts a party, then why the hell do the Republicans own all three branches? Infighting is critical to prepare the party and build a narrative where voters know what the party is about.
No, now is not the time to play nice with the establishment that got us here. They are lining up a new batch of clones as we speak.
If you want to help the Democrats, then get behind Ben Wikler (best option I’ve seen so far) out of Wisconsin for the DNC chair position. The establishment is going to try and quietly shuffle one of their useless clones while nobody is looking, so look, and tell everyone you know to look. Write to your Democratic representatives and tell them the party needs to find it’s feet again with actual leadership that knows how to connect with working class voters.
Republicans took all 3 branches because they don’t criticize their own party. And they attack anyone who does. And they show up to vote no matter what because they don’t get apathetic towards their own party.
What planet do you live on? Ever hear of the Lincoln Project? Do you not remember the Republicans throwing out their own Speaker of the House?
The turnout thing is accurate to a point, but is almost always (intentionally) misunderstood. The more left a voter gets, the more engaged they are, and the more likely they are to show up and vote for Democrats. That has been shown in multiple studies and is well understood even by establishment bobbleheads.
It’s the vast sea of disengaged and ideologically confused working class Americans that sometimes show up and sometimes don’t. We know how to reach these people, and the Democratic establishment just isn’t that interested. Their process is to message to these folks just enough to get 51% in swing states. That’s what keeps the margins so consistently tight, and Republicans win because reality doesn’t always conform to Democratic expectations.
In order to do better, Democrats have to be willing to anger their patrons. That’s not something they have been willing to do.
What was unique in this election is that the Republicans managed to pick up a lot of those voters. This election wasn’t swung by voter turnout. The unreliable voters turned out, but they turned out for Republicans. Democrats have now officially become the party of the wealthy,band Republicans are now the party of the working class. That’s obviously an insane disaster, and it’s pathetic that anyone is still defending the Democratic establishment.
The more left a voter gets, the more engaged they are, and the more likely they are to show up and vote for Democrats. That has been shown in multiple studies and is well understood even by establishment bobbleheads.
Care to share those studies?
It’s the vast sea of disengaged and ideologically confused working class Americans that sometimes show up and sometimes don’t.
What’s your source for this claim?
We know how to reach these people, and the Democratic establishment just isn’t that interested.
Who’s “we” and what makes you so confident that you know how to reach “these people”?
Their process is to message to these folks just enough to get 51% in swing states.
What’s your source for this claim?
In order to do better, Democrats have to be willing to anger their patrons.
Better in what way?
The unreliable voters turned out, but they turned out for Republicans.
Which indicates that these voters wanted someone furthest right. Meanwhile progressives claim the opposite is true: that democrats need to go further left.
That’s obviously an insane disaster, and it’s pathetic that anyone is still defending the Democratic establishment.
To not support democrats is to support republicans.
Why? Is your belief that progressives don’t show up based on anything but establishment talking points? But sure, I’ll do some work for you. See this Pew study.
Who’s “we” and what makes you so confident that you know how to reach “these people”?
Which indicates that these voters wanted someone furthest right.
Or, maybe the political universe can’t be captured in a single dimension. Most of the American public (barely) pays attention to politics for 3-4 months every 4 years. They aren’t exactly policy wonks. The dominant measure today is populist vs establishment. People don’t know what they believe, but they do know that neither party establishment gives two shits about them. They wanted a disruptor, and astoundingly they managed to figure out which candidate that was. Not that Trump will do shit for them, but they will learn that (again) soon enough.
Meanwhile progressives claim the opposite is true: that democrats need to go further left.
Do you know where left and right come from? It was the French parliament after the revolution. The left stood with the people, and the right stood with royalty. Democrats need to stand with the people. As I said above, left vs right political theory isn’t something that most voters (or politicians if we’re being honest) give a shit about. But, with growing inequality and corporate overreach, people do want politicians taking their sides. Trump had more leftist rhetoric than the Democrats.
To not support democrats is to support republicans.
Supporting Democrats and supporting the Democratic Establishment are two different things. I don’t give a shit about red vs blue, but I know that one party is more assailable than the other, so that’s where I look to make change for a better world.
Why? Is your belief that progressives don’t show up based on anything but establishment talking points? But sure, I’ll do some work for you. See this Pew study.
Nope, it’s based on the progressive talking point that democrats lost because Harris wasn’t far enough left. You’re not doing work for me. I didn’t make the claim. If you can’t be bothered to back up your own claims then they aren’t worth anything.
Progressives, this, and this.
Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see any source for that map. How did they get the numbers? What are the numbers? It just looks like someone colored a bunch of land and put some names on it. Not to mention it’s a Reddit post.
You’re confident that you know how to reach people that won’t vote democrat because of a town hall of Bernie? I must be missing something.
Um, get votes? I thought that was pretty obvious.
I’m not going to debate based on assumptions. Use your words.
Or, maybe the political universe can’t be captured in a single dimension.
Voters chose the candidate furthest to the right, it doesn’t get any more conclusive than that when it comes to whether voters want a candidate that’s further left.
Do you know where left and right come from?
The origins of left and right dont change anything. Just to be clear, I’d vote for a more progressive candidate. But they wouldn’t win in my red state. Moderates have won before though because they get a mix of voters that is larger than just right or left. And if our democracy is on the line then it isn’t time to let perfection be the enemy of progress.
If progressives keep sowing apathy for the Democratic Party then less people will vote democrat and the GOP will keep growing in power. That is, if we get to vote again, considering Trumps rhetoric.
Supporting Democrats and supporting the Democratic Establishment are two different things. I don’t give a shit about red vs blue, but I know that one party is more assailable than the other, so that’s where I look to make change for a better world.
Same here. But I don’t sow apathy for the better option because that gives voters a reason to not vote for that option and it doesn’t take a lot of voters staying home to lose an election.
it’s based on the progressive talking point that democrats lost because Harris wasn’t far enough left.
Is that a talking point? If so, progressives aren’t sticking to it very well. I mean, it’s true, but only because being further left is also further populist. Progressive analysis is far more extensive than “not left enough”. What you are talking about is a straw man constructed by establishment democrats. You love sources, so show me one progressive arguing this way.
You’re not doing work for me.
I am, because this stuff is easy to lookup, and your arguments are nothing but uncritically accepted vibes.
Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see any source for that map.
It’s a map of individual donors by county in the 2020 Democratic primary. The reddit link was the first to come up when I searched. I’ll find you a better link as soon as you show me a progressive saying Democrats lost because they weren’t left enough.
I’m not going to debate based on assumptions. Use your words.
If I have to explain to you that Democrats doing better in elections means getting more votes, I’ll be writing fucking novels. How about using your mind just a little?
I must be missing something.
That’s a little understated. You don’t see the significance of the furthest left Democratic candidate getting through to a fox news audience as applicable to the question?
You really don’t get it and, at this point, I’m happy to just leave it that way.
Is that a talking point? If so, progressives aren’t sticking to it very well. I mean, it’s true, but only because being further left is also further populist. Progressive analysis is far more extensive than “not left enough”. What you are talking about is a straw man constructed by establishment democrats. You love sources, so show me one progressive arguing this way.
You say it’s true but claim it’s a straw man constructed by establishment democrats, which is it? You’re contradicting yourself. Every thread on lemmy regarding Harris losing has someone saying it and now I can add you to the sources since you’re saying it’s true.
I am, because this stuff is easy to lookup, and your arguments are nothing but uncritically accepted vibes.
That’s not how the burden of proof works. You make the claim, you provide evidence to support the claim. Otherwise your claim is made up. If that needs to be explained to you then It’s no wonder you’re posting Reddit threads of screenshots with no sources as a source for your claims.
It’s a map of individual donors by county in the 2020 Democratic primary. The reddit link was the first to come up when I searched. I’ll find you a better link as soon as you show me a progressive saying Democrats lost because they weren’t left enough.
My source is the comment section of every post on lemmy regarding Harris losing. If I share an article claiming the same you’ve already primed the argument that it’s an establishment democrat straw man while also admitting it’s true.
If I have to explain to you that Democrats doing better in elections means getting more votes, I’ll be writing fucking novels. How about using your mind just a little?
This is how people making bad faith arguments move the goalpost. They make vague statements and when they are proven wrong they say they weren’t talking about that thing you assumed, they were referring to something else. The only way to prevent this is to call it out and make them be specific about their statements.
That’s a little understated. You don’t see the significance of the furthest left Democratic candidate getting through to a fox news audience as applicable to the question?
For that to be applicable to the question, he would have to be the only one that did it… Harris interviewed on Fox News also.
So I guess I’m not missing something, you are.
You really don’t get it and, at this point, I’m happy to just leave it that way.
I’m sure you’re happy to run away without any sources to your claims.
What democrats do does matter. That’s why we shouldn’t do the GOPs job for them by sowing apathy for democrats. Because that leads to the GOP gaining power. That’s why FUD exists.
Whatever apathy was down, Democrats did it to themselves. Our job right now is to crush the damn establishment that is intent on continuing to do it. They are trying to throw out a million reasons why this loss was anything but their fault, just so they can go back to business as usual. That cannot happen again.
If you think infighting hurts a party, then why the hell do the Republicans own all three branches? Infighting is critical to prepare the party and build a narrative where voters know what the party is about.
No, now is not the time to play nice with the establishment that got us here. They are lining up a new batch of clones as we speak.
If you want to help the Democrats, then get behind Ben Wikler (best option I’ve seen so far) out of Wisconsin for the DNC chair position. The establishment is going to try and quietly shuffle one of their useless clones while nobody is looking, so look, and tell everyone you know to look. Write to your Democratic representatives and tell them the party needs to find it’s feet again with actual leadership that knows how to connect with working class voters.
Republicans took all 3 branches because they don’t criticize their own party. And they attack anyone who does. And they show up to vote no matter what because they don’t get apathetic towards their own party.
What planet do you live on? Ever hear of the Lincoln Project? Do you not remember the Republicans throwing out their own Speaker of the House?
The turnout thing is accurate to a point, but is almost always (intentionally) misunderstood. The more left a voter gets, the more engaged they are, and the more likely they are to show up and vote for Democrats. That has been shown in multiple studies and is well understood even by establishment bobbleheads.
It’s the vast sea of disengaged and ideologically confused working class Americans that sometimes show up and sometimes don’t. We know how to reach these people, and the Democratic establishment just isn’t that interested. Their process is to message to these folks just enough to get 51% in swing states. That’s what keeps the margins so consistently tight, and Republicans win because reality doesn’t always conform to Democratic expectations.
In order to do better, Democrats have to be willing to anger their patrons. That’s not something they have been willing to do.
What was unique in this election is that the Republicans managed to pick up a lot of those voters. This election wasn’t swung by voter turnout. The unreliable voters turned out, but they turned out for Republicans. Democrats have now officially become the party of the wealthy,band Republicans are now the party of the working class. That’s obviously an insane disaster, and it’s pathetic that anyone is still defending the Democratic establishment.
Care to share those studies?
What’s your source for this claim?
Who’s “we” and what makes you so confident that you know how to reach “these people”?
What’s your source for this claim?
Better in what way?
Which indicates that these voters wanted someone furthest right. Meanwhile progressives claim the opposite is true: that democrats need to go further left.
To not support democrats is to support republicans.
Why? Is your belief that progressives don’t show up based on anything but establishment talking points? But sure, I’ll do some work for you. See this Pew study.
Progressives, this, and this.
Um, get votes? I thought that was pretty obvious.
Or, maybe the political universe can’t be captured in a single dimension. Most of the American public (barely) pays attention to politics for 3-4 months every 4 years. They aren’t exactly policy wonks. The dominant measure today is populist vs establishment. People don’t know what they believe, but they do know that neither party establishment gives two shits about them. They wanted a disruptor, and astoundingly they managed to figure out which candidate that was. Not that Trump will do shit for them, but they will learn that (again) soon enough.
Do you know where left and right come from? It was the French parliament after the revolution. The left stood with the people, and the right stood with royalty. Democrats need to stand with the people. As I said above, left vs right political theory isn’t something that most voters (or politicians if we’re being honest) give a shit about. But, with growing inequality and corporate overreach, people do want politicians taking their sides. Trump had more leftist rhetoric than the Democrats.
Supporting Democrats and supporting the Democratic Establishment are two different things. I don’t give a shit about red vs blue, but I know that one party is more assailable than the other, so that’s where I look to make change for a better world.
Nope, it’s based on the progressive talking point that democrats lost because Harris wasn’t far enough left. You’re not doing work for me. I didn’t make the claim. If you can’t be bothered to back up your own claims then they aren’t worth anything.
Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see any source for that map. How did they get the numbers? What are the numbers? It just looks like someone colored a bunch of land and put some names on it. Not to mention it’s a Reddit post.
You’re confident that you know how to reach people that won’t vote democrat because of a town hall of Bernie? I must be missing something.
I’m not going to debate based on assumptions. Use your words.
Voters chose the candidate furthest to the right, it doesn’t get any more conclusive than that when it comes to whether voters want a candidate that’s further left.
The origins of left and right dont change anything. Just to be clear, I’d vote for a more progressive candidate. But they wouldn’t win in my red state. Moderates have won before though because they get a mix of voters that is larger than just right or left. And if our democracy is on the line then it isn’t time to let perfection be the enemy of progress.
If progressives keep sowing apathy for the Democratic Party then less people will vote democrat and the GOP will keep growing in power. That is, if we get to vote again, considering Trumps rhetoric.
Same here. But I don’t sow apathy for the better option because that gives voters a reason to not vote for that option and it doesn’t take a lot of voters staying home to lose an election.
Is that a talking point? If so, progressives aren’t sticking to it very well. I mean, it’s true, but only because being further left is also further populist. Progressive analysis is far more extensive than “not left enough”. What you are talking about is a straw man constructed by establishment democrats. You love sources, so show me one progressive arguing this way.
I am, because this stuff is easy to lookup, and your arguments are nothing but uncritically accepted vibes.
It’s a map of individual donors by county in the 2020 Democratic primary. The reddit link was the first to come up when I searched. I’ll find you a better link as soon as you show me a progressive saying Democrats lost because they weren’t left enough.
If I have to explain to you that Democrats doing better in elections means getting more votes, I’ll be writing fucking novels. How about using your mind just a little?
That’s a little understated. You don’t see the significance of the furthest left Democratic candidate getting through to a fox news audience as applicable to the question?
You really don’t get it and, at this point, I’m happy to just leave it that way.
You say it’s true but claim it’s a straw man constructed by establishment democrats, which is it? You’re contradicting yourself. Every thread on lemmy regarding Harris losing has someone saying it and now I can add you to the sources since you’re saying it’s true.
That’s not how the burden of proof works. You make the claim, you provide evidence to support the claim. Otherwise your claim is made up. If that needs to be explained to you then It’s no wonder you’re posting Reddit threads of screenshots with no sources as a source for your claims.
My source is the comment section of every post on lemmy regarding Harris losing. If I share an article claiming the same you’ve already primed the argument that it’s an establishment democrat straw man while also admitting it’s true.
This is how people making bad faith arguments move the goalpost. They make vague statements and when they are proven wrong they say they weren’t talking about that thing you assumed, they were referring to something else. The only way to prevent this is to call it out and make them be specific about their statements.
For that to be applicable to the question, he would have to be the only one that did it… Harris interviewed on Fox News also.
So I guess I’m not missing something, you are.
I’m sure you’re happy to run away without any sources to your claims.