If only the DNC could get their shit together, if he was the nomination last election, or the one before, or the one before, the world would be in such a better place.
Because SCOTUS decided that it was perfectly fair and valid to have the final vote on who got to he president come down to one of the peoplesā brother and there was absolutely nothing wrong about that
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, itās a cautionary tale.
That argument goes both ways. āNader would have won if progressives hadnāt handed the election to the Republicans by throwing their votes away on Gore.ā Same is true for 2016 with Bernie and Clinton.
It really doesnāt go both ways. The winning presidential candidate needs to get the most votes, and most US voters are not progressive. Theyāre moderate, or indifferent.
I donāt know how you could say that about HRC and Sanders. Thatās 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 hasnāt been good for progressive interests or democracy.
You acknowledge progressives wonāt vote for moderates. But what makes you think moderates wonāt vote for progressives if they donāt have a choice?
Do you really believe the people who voted for Clinton wouldnāt have voted for Sanders in the general? If so, then shouldnāt the blame be on them too? If not, then can you admit youāre wrong?
Iāve read your comment a few times but Iām having a genuinely hard time parsing your point.
The person Iām 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 donāt mean to be rude, but what is the point of this thought experiment? Nader wasnāt the only choice. Moreover, US politics in 2000 was significantly less polarized: MANY Gore voters would have definitely voted for Bush, who campaigned under ācompassionate conservatismā 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. Iām 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 Iāve said.
Nah, they reiterated my point pretty well. You canāt claim that ācandidate āAā is the correct choice because of their broad appealā when they wind up losing the election. Obviously, they didnāt have the most appeal. The attitude that āI picked the right person and itās everyone elseās fault they didnāt winā is absurd. Anybody can make that argument about any candidate and be just as equally ācorrect.ā
Thatās 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 arenāt 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.
Itās like youāre 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 donāt compromise, then there is not enough money and youāre all homeless. In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either donāt believe in democracy, or youāre happy with things never getting better.
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 donāt vote, you donāt āsend a messageā, you simply forfeit your political power. If Republicans win, and keep winning, then thatās 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 ālosersā. Rightwingers do that all the time. By that logic, progressives also had āloser candidatesā, since many fail in the primaries. I personally donāt think Sanders, for example, was a āloserā, even if he lost in the primary.
Yes, progressives who stay at home for the general election do not understand US democracy.
Or we do? āWe lose regardless. Letās stay home.ā
Iām getting really sick of this inversion of responsibility. Moderates dominate the primaries and elect someone who doesnāt resonate with the leftists and progressives but arenāt responsible for how that candidate does in the general? They control the outcome in the primaries but arenāt 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?
We might as well skip all the pomp and circumstance and just assign the votes automatically based on party registration. Thatās how itās done currently with the added facade of having a āchoice.ā
The Overton window continues to shift to the right regardless of who wins elections because there are power people benefiting from it and itās incredibly easy to spread propaganda to the masses with tv/radio/internet.
What are you even talking about with your first paragraph? The result of elections arenāt predictable. In fact, theyāre less predictable than ever. And whatās with āchoiceā in quotes: are you an election truther? Thatās more of a right wing conspiracy.
Thatās a pathetic cowardly take on the Overton window. What even is your point? āLetās give up because nothing mattersā? Fuck that. Iām fighting.
Itās also empirically untrue: I donāt know how you havenāt 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.
Recounts only matter if youāre counting all the ballots instead of just the ballots you want you count because your brother happens to be one of the candidates. They invalidated a bunch of ballots that were hole-punched because the paper that was punched out didnāt completely tear away (see: āhanging chadā).
He alone wouldnāt have been able to do much. As instead of just having conservatives/Republicans against him, the Democratic partyās members in Congress and in other fed and state level spots would also be against him. Until we get third parties in there to break up the eternal gridlock of never moving forward for real people. We just keep being pulled to the right and the centrists only care about not making the rich happy. Burn them and all of it to the ground.
If only the DNC could get their shit together, if he was the nomination last election, or the one before, or the one before, the world would be in such a better place.
We could have had Al Gore instead of Bush if the Supreme Court didnāt toss Bush the crown becauseā¦ reasons
Because SCOTUS decided that it was perfectly fair and valid to have the final vote on who got to he president come down to one of the peoplesā brother and there was absolutely nothing wrong about that
If only we had AI Gore in the early 00s.
We should have! Republicans illegally stole that from us as well
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, itās a cautionary tale.
I wonder how the Nader voters feel.
That argument goes both ways. āNader would have won if progressives hadnāt handed the election to the Republicans by throwing their votes away on Gore.ā Same is true for 2016 with Bernie and Clinton.
It really doesnāt go both ways. The winning presidential candidate needs to get the most votes, and most US voters are not progressive. Theyāre moderate, or indifferent.
I donāt know how you could say that about HRC and Sanders. Thatās 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 hasnāt been good for progressive interests or democracy.
Your argument makes no sense.
You acknowledge progressives wonāt vote for moderates. But what makes you think moderates wonāt vote for progressives if they donāt have a choice?
Do you really believe the people who voted for Clinton wouldnāt have voted for Sanders in the general? If so, then shouldnāt the blame be on them too? If not, then can you admit youāre wrong?
Iāve read your comment a few times but Iām having a genuinely hard time parsing your point.
The person Iām 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 donāt mean to be rude, but what is the point of this thought experiment? Nader wasnāt the only choice. Moreover, US politics in 2000 was significantly less polarized: MANY Gore voters would have definitely voted for Bush, who campaigned under ācompassionate conservatismā 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. Iām 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 Iāve said.
Nah, they reiterated my point pretty well. You canāt claim that ācandidate āAā is the correct choice because of their broad appealā when they wind up losing the election. Obviously, they didnāt have the most appeal. The attitude that āI picked the right person and itās everyone elseās fault they didnāt winā is absurd. Anybody can make that argument about any candidate and be just as equally ācorrect.ā
Thatās 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 arenāt 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.
Itās like youāre 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 donāt compromise, then there is not enough money and youāre all homeless. In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either donāt believe in democracy, or youāre happy with things never getting better.
Iām missing the part where people are responsible for voting for a bad candidate in the DNC primaries.
Iām not sure what you mean.
Youāre shaming progressives for staying home, but you arenāt casting judgement at the people who voted for a loser candidate in the primaries.
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 donāt vote, you donāt āsend a messageā, you simply forfeit your political power. If Republicans win, and keep winning, then thatās 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 ālosersā. Rightwingers do that all the time. By that logic, progressives also had āloser candidatesā, since many fail in the primaries. I personally donāt think Sanders, for example, was a āloserā, even if he lost in the primary.
Or we do? āWe lose regardless. Letās stay home.ā
Iām getting really sick of this inversion of responsibility. Moderates dominate the primaries and elect someone who doesnāt resonate with the leftists and progressives but arenāt responsible for how that candidate does in the general? They control the outcome in the primaries but arenāt 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?
right
We might as well skip all the pomp and circumstance and just assign the votes automatically based on party registration. Thatās how itās done currently with the added facade of having a āchoice.ā
The Overton window continues to shift to the right regardless of who wins elections because there are power people benefiting from it and itās incredibly easy to spread propaganda to the masses with tv/radio/internet.
What are you even talking about with your first paragraph? The result of elections arenāt predictable. In fact, theyāre less predictable than ever. And whatās with āchoiceā in quotes: are you an election truther? Thatās more of a right wing conspiracy.
Thatās a pathetic cowardly take on the Overton window. What even is your point? āLetās give up because nothing mattersā? Fuck that. Iām fighting.
Itās also empirically untrue: I donāt know how you havenāt 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.
im confused on this, didnt they do like three recounts??
Recounts only matter if youāre counting all the ballots instead of just the ballots you want you count because your brother happens to be one of the candidates. They invalidated a bunch of ballots that were hole-punched because the paper that was punched out didnāt completely tear away (see: āhanging chadā).
i dont understand? did bush have a governor brother in florida?
Yes Jeb Bush is his brother and was governor at the time.
He alone wouldnāt have been able to do much. As instead of just having conservatives/Republicans against him, the Democratic partyās members in Congress and in other fed and state level spots would also be against him. Until we get third parties in there to break up the eternal gridlock of never moving forward for real people. We just keep being pulled to the right and the centrists only care about not making the rich happy. Burn them and all of it to the ground.