politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
People tend to extrapolate that since some things are broadly fucked everything is fucked for them personally, forgetting that on a personal level for most people who would be posting on Lemmy, there are many things to be thankful for and many things that have gone right. The clear and obvious wealth disparity (for example) may be sickening and outrageous but that ends up usually being a question of degree, which is why I joke that that people are really complaining that their TV isn't big enough.
And then we shoot ourselves in the feet by assuming that because of this generalized feeling of "bad" and "unjust" that there is no path forward and that no progress has been made. This is factually incorrect and easy to disprove, but people get mired in the "this sucks" phase, leading to angry fist waving without action. tl;dr people love to complain but are too lazy and myopic to do anything about their complaints.
Eh... I'll agree to some extent... Though I think people are also deliberately restricted from taking meaningful action. And after 40 years of the center teaming up with the right instead of the left, when teaming up left would mean almost certain victory, I think many people are disillusioned and burnt out. They don't see a way of ever being represented, given the current system, so they've given up on the system. The only way for someone to get them off the couch is to come with a plan to change the system completely.
Except it demonstrably doesn't. If that were so Bernie would have won overwhelmingly in the primary. Pretty much all the polling and research suggests that the majority of US voters are pretty center or center-left, with dems being pretty evenly split between center/moderate and progressive. (Eg https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/the-partisanship-and-ideology-of-american-voters/)
Saying "if we were just more left wing" completely ignores this reality. It's frankly nonsense.
If you take a look at this chart from the article you sent, it sums things up pretty well. Bernie vs Clinton was just the blue. If all the liberals voted and all the progressives voted, Clinton wins. Obviously not all registered voters voted in the primary, but it still would have been pretty close. Also I won't get into the fact that Clinton's minions absolutely had their thumb on the scale.
However if you recognize that pretty much all the reds always vote, and the light blues always vote, then that leaves progressives (dark blues) left to sway. Except it's just a matter of how many you can get to show up. IF they do show up, they vote blue. The Dems have to choose between dark blue and light red. They seem to think they can peel off more red than they could ever get dark blue. But they've never been able to peel off more than a percent or two... Meanwhile they basically tell the much larger group of dark blues to shut up and vote for them without ever actually courting them. In the end though... The difference between an R win and a D win comes down to how many progressives actually show up. That's it.
So let me get this straight. Somehow you think that if Clinton went left she'd gain more progressives but NOT lose conservatives/moderates/independents? That is just not the way it works. tl;dr they are trying to thread the needle.
No, it comes down to how many voters vote for one or the other. As in all voters.
I think she/Biden/Dems would gain more progressives than they would lose conservatives/moderates/independents... absolutely. The types of people who vote for Clinton/Biden ALWAYS vote... And they sure as shit aren't going to vote for Trump or even stay home. They will vote for whoever is the Dem nominee every time. Which means a progressive would also get those votes. Maybe, big maybe, some of the more conservative Dems would choose Trump over Bernie, but I highly doubt it.
So everyone who would vote for Biden, would also vote for Bernie, but not everyone who would vote for Bernie would vote for Biden. The math isn't that hard.
You think. Despite not having any data, not doing any real research and not being familiar with how campaigns are run.
Pure speculation not borne out by the 2016 election results.
You aren't doing math. You are going with your gut and guessing.
The report you linked to shows what I'm saying. You should read it.
Do you really think there are millions of people out there thinking "well I'll vote for Biden, but it's a close call... If it wasn't Joe then I'd vote for Trump"? Who do you think is actually on the fence between Trump and Biden? No one... The fence is full of people deciding between showing up and not showing up. If we can get them to show up, they'll vote against Trump.
The 2016 primary has nothing to do with what's happening now (other than Clinton getting us into this whole mess with her arrogance and hubris).
The report you linked to shows what I'm saying. You should give it a read sometime. As I did... Weeks ago... Because I do plenty of research. I'm familiar with how campaigns are run.
You really think there's millions of people out there on the fence between Biden and Trump? Like "I know I'm going to vote, but I just can't decide who I like better, Trump or Biden".. or maybe you think there's tons of people who are like "I'll definitely vote for Biden because Trump is such a threat, but if it was someone like Bernie, no way, suddenly Trump doesn't seem like that much of a threat." That just doesn't exist. The people on the fence this election are deciding whether or not to show up at all. If they show up they'll vote against Trump, but the more they can believe in who they're voting for the more likely they are to actually show up.
No it doesn't. And instead of explaining why you think that you just keep goin on and on repeating the same speculation
Have a nice day.