142
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
142 points (86.2% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3839 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not to mention the basic principle of democracy: political parties have a tendency to gravitate towards where the votes are.
The Democratic party isn't a static thing. They will move further left if it gets them more votes. They move right if that gets them more votes. If the Democrats go further right, it's not to spite leftists screaming on the internet. It's because leftists aren't voting and screaming on the internet is meaningless.
Leftists that aren't voting are leftist that don't actually want any leftist policies implemented. They just want to complain about policies not being implemented while doing nothing to make it happen. If they actually believe in the changes they say they want they'd be willing to vote in as many elections as necessary to see it happen. Over the course of decades id necessary. Voting in zero elections shows very dedication for what they claim to be important.
Obama ran to Clinton's left and was insanely popular. What way did the party move after his presidency?
You mean towards the largest number of votes?
And who won that election?
The thing you were arguing about is that they will not move left even if it gets them more votes. You referenced 2016. It looks like they went towards the more votes even in 2016, no?
You now wish to change your argument. "If Dems had ignored the more votes and gone further left, it would have won the election," am I reading that correctly?
I also preferred Sanders. But I don't see how you can logically hold both those positions.
The party saw that Obama was popular when he was to Clinton's left. They moved right anyway. They lost. Yes, Clinton got more votes than Trump. They still moved to the right after it was demonstrated that moving left excited voters.
They move right no matter what and make up excuses after the fact. At least until last week. And just look at how excited Democrats finally are. The dam has burst.
Clinton got more votes than Sanders, that is why they went rightwards instead of leftwards. On the topic of that person saying leftists need to vote to move the needle, you claimed that was wrong. That's delusional? You want them to ignore the majority of their voters and go left because you felt excited about Sanders? I did also but what the hell.
I'm glad Harris is popular with the Dem majority who do reliably vote as well as the unreliable younger demographics. It is looking pretty good. I hope it does get voters excited enough to show up and I hope the leftward ones continue to participate in the future so that the needle swings in the correct direction.
I'm glad the party decided to fucking listen for once. The enthusiasm is because they listened. The listening was not because of enthusiasm, but rather its absence.
They listened in 2008 and ran Obama instead of Clinton, then they listened in 2016 and ran Clinton instead of Sanders. They have been listening to people who actually show up to vote, which was that person's point.
How do you want them to behave such that they would have ignored the votes for Sanders but not ignored the votes for Obama? Please suggest a policy they can use which is consistent and has integrity, not just, "I was personally excited for candidate A therefore candidate A should have won the primaries."
If you're going to pretend that the party's support for Clinton was the result of a fair primary and wasn't already present before a single vote was cast, there's no point in arguing with you.
They moved to the right before the 2016 primaries.
Thank you for you agreeing I am correct that they follow the votes. You can move the goalposts to campaign financing if you like.
They move to the right and then announce they follow the votes, regardless of where the votes actually are. You're just happy they move to the right.
I linked you to what the votes in that primary actually were, feel free to observe the facts if your ego isn't too fragile for it. I'm not happy about it, I am just trying to not have a cognitive bias in the same why that you do. It's insane. We agree on the desired outcome in these elections but you're so focused on being mad about how the votes went in the 2016 primary that you accuse me of being happy they chose Clinton. Get a grip.
And implicit in that is the assumption that the 2016 primaries were fair. I also pointed out that the party leadership was all in on Clinton before a single vote was cast. They had no way of knowing where the votes were. They saw that Obama, who ran to Clinton's left, was popular with voters. But they wanted Clinton. So they put the cart before the horse.
Maybe they should have taken the votes of people in swing states into account when they totally decided to follow the votes instead of just moving to the right.
What swing states? AZ? NV? PA? FL? Somehow I suspect the DNC should have thrown out those votes and listened to only CO and WI, right?
Do you fact check anything you write or you're just all in on cognitive bias all the time?
Again, you're assuming a fair primary. You're also assuming that Sanders would have fewer votes in the general.
There was no public sentiment clamoring for the party to move to the right in 2016. Just the unfounded assumption that Clinton was the strongest available candidate because the party had bullied all other candidates save one out of the race.
She lost to Trump because she didn't have enough votes. She had more than Trump did, sure. But it wasn't enough votes. Enthusiasm matters. Railroading the voters with a candidate they resent voting for kills enthusiasm.
Enthusiasm matters, so ignore what the majority of the voters want? Insane.
They didn't "bully" anyone, they had a bias with funding. They preferred her going in, maybe because Clinton was literally neck and neck with Obama in the 2008 primaries and Obama did really fucking well in the general.
Voter turnout in the '08 primaries was like 35 million. Voter turnout in '16 was like 30 million. If people were that enthusiastic they could have easily overridden the DNC's bias towards Clinton.
Which, again, is what that person was saying, you cannot move the needle by sitting aside and letting them choose. Again, try to get beyond your profound cognitive bias and look at what actually started this chain. Holy fuck. It is exhausting.
You are doing some revisionist history. You are too biased to even speak with. You literally want them to ignore what their voters are voting for while claiming that you want the opposite. Come on.