• SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    Ā·
    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 donā€™t vote, you donā€™t ā€œsend a messageā€, you simply forfeit your political power. If Republicans win, and keep winning, then thatā€™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 ā€œlosersā€. Rightwingers do that all the time. By that logic, progressives also had ā€œloser candidatesā€, since many fail in the primaries. I personally donā€™t think Sanders, for example, was a ā€œloserā€, even if he lost in the primary.

    • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

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

      Or we do? ā€œWe lose regardless. Letā€™s stay home.ā€

      Iā€™m getting really sick of this inversion of responsibility. Moderates dominate the primaries and elect someone who doesnā€™t resonate with the leftists and progressives but arenā€™t responsible for how that candidate does in the general? They control the outcome in the primaries but arenā€™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?

    • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      Ā·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      We might as well skip all the pomp and circumstance and just assign the votes automatically based on party registration. Thatā€™s how itā€™s done currently with the added facade of having a ā€œchoice.ā€

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

      • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        What are you even talking about with your first paragraph? The result of elections arenā€™t predictable. In fact, theyā€™re less predictable than ever. And whatā€™s with ā€œchoiceā€ in quotes: are you an election truther? Thatā€™s more of a right wing conspiracy.

        Thatā€™s a pathetic cowardly take on the Overton window. What even is your point? ā€œLetā€™s give up because nothing mattersā€? Fuck that. Iā€™m fighting.

        Itā€™s also empirically untrue: I donā€™t know how you havenā€™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.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          Ā·
          9 months ago

          Iā€™m talking about the fact that we keep getting Clintonā€™s and Bidens as our nominees because thatā€™s what the party leadership wants. They choose who gets the backing, who gets the funding, who gets the airtime, and who gets to debate. The primaries are little more than a sham to give us the illusion of choice because this private organization already picked their winner. You claim elections are less predictable than ever, yet thereā€™s a 100% chance itā€™s going to be one of two people, either the D or R, whoā€™s going to win, both backed by the same wealthy donors to do their bidding. Thatā€™s the illusion of choice.

          Your fighting, eh? Well, howā€™s the fight coming? At what point do you consider the fight won? Do you envision some point in the future where Republicans no longer hold office and the country is some utopia of pure Democratic leadership? Good luck accomplishing that when, as I stated above, there are only two choice on the ballot and one of them is Republican. That kind of solidifies their place in government as theyā€™re the only alternative for people to vote for. That ensures weā€™ll keep having people like Trump waiting in the wings and taking office every time a Clinton-like candidate runs against them. This also ensures that Democratic candidates donā€™t actually have to do jack shit for the country as theyā€™re going to get your vote anyway. This is why I stated that elections might as well be automatic based on party registration and why itā€™s an illusion of choice. Youā€™re not fighting by voting D or R. Youā€™re just perpetuating the status quo.

          • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            Ā·
            9 months ago

            If you think Bidenā€™s candidacy was inevitable, you were asleep during the primaries. Hereā€™s the simple obvious explanation: Biden never lost his nationwide polling lead, not once, during the whole race. Are the polls part of the conspiracy too?

            The craziest thing about your conspiracy theory is that itā€™s flatly contradicted by Trump, who was clearly NOT the establishment choice in 2016. Establishment politicians and media pushed Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, John Kasich, anyone but Trump. They all criticized or downplayed Trump non-stop (for good reason)ā€¦ and yet he won.

            Well, howā€™s the fight coming?

            Iā€™m living through one of the biggest shifts left in politics in a generation. The left/center-left coalition has been surprisingly dominant. Mid-terms, special elections, etc. We keep winning. Itā€™s not perfect, but itā€™s the right direction. But we need to keep winning elections for a long time for durable change.

            At what point do you consider the fight won?

            Never. Politics is a continual process, not a destination. If we get complacent, progress dies.

            Do you envision some point in the future where Republicans no longer hold office and the country is some utopia of pure Democratic leadership?

            No. Thatā€™s not even the point. Republicans used to be the progressive party (thatā€™s why they use the color red). Parties donā€™t matter as much as ideas. The point isnā€™t for ā€œmy teamā€ to win. If Republicans continue losing for a decade, then they will be forced to shift left, just as Dems shifted right after Reagan with Clinton.

            • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              Ā·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              If you think Bidenā€™s candidacy was inevitable, you were asleep during the primaries.

              I feel like youā€™re asleep now. Even as people sweat the possibility of Biden losing they are claiming Biden had the best chance of anyone running in the primaries to defeat Trump in the general. Letā€™s dissect that claim for a moment.

              That would mean:

              1. There are people who would either vote for Trump, 3rd party or not vote at all in the general election if Biden had not won the primaries.
              2. That population of people must exceed the number of leftists and progressives staying home or voting 3rd party because Biden won the primaries.

              Furthermore, this message isnā€™t being delivered as a political reality backed up by numbers and proof, but rather a promise by moderates. If leftists or progressives did manage to get a candidate through the primaries moderates would abandon all that ā€œvote blue not matter whoā€ stuff immediately and outright fight them in the general election to prove a point.

              Apathy, rebellion and anger are rational responses to this experience.

              • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                Ā·
                9 months ago

                Youā€™re changing the subject. My claim was about 2020, not 2024. This year, yes, Bidenā€™s candidacy is inevitable. It is almost unheard of to challenge an incumbent president, and Democrats want to avoid an intra-party fight. When Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980, it was a disaster that damaged the party for a long time.

                I agree with you that Biden is a weak candidate and there are better candidates. But you made the extreme claim that elections donā€™t matter, that we have no choice, that shadowy elites choose all the candidates, and other silly conspiracy theories.

                Conspiracy theories donā€™t become justified just because youā€™re apathetic and angry. Iā€™m not sure how you think youā€™re being rebellious. When you donā€™t vote, thatā€™s not rebellion. No one cares. You donā€™t matter, politically.

                • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  Ā·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  I was talking about the 2020 primaries as well. Even in retrospect plenty of people still say out of all candidates in the 2020 primaries Biden was the best chance of beating Trump. Then they turn around and try to figure out why so many leftists and progressives are becoming apathetic, angry or voting 3rd party.