632
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
632 points (73.9% liked)
Political Memes
5347 readers
2767 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Abstaining or voting 3rd party to "make Dems listen" doesn't work. If anyone thinks they can play Mexican Standoff, you can't because the Dems have an out: the center voter. Every time they lose, they go to the center to find voters.
And remember they need all 3 of presidency, house of representatives, and senate to pass pretty much anything. If they don't have all 3 they will go to the center to find voters. Some people call this rachet effect, but really they're looking for voters. Want them to stop 'racheting'? Then give them consistent and overwhelming victories.
so you think if we vote for them no matter what they do, they will start representing our wishes out of the goodness of their hearts, instead of Aipac's who come to them with palletloads of cash? Thats... an interesting theory.
First, again, they go to the center when they lose. If they don’t lose, they don’t need to go to the center to find voters.
Second: They will do what ~~people~~ voters want. That is the whole point, voters. Right now the voters are voting for brutally slow progress. That's what they get when they give Dems control of all 3 for only 4 years every 24 years. Want faster progress? Then be the voters that vote for faster progress by giving Dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
In addition to that, I really think Dems want left policy. They do it when they can despite it costing them elections. According to your logic they would never have done the ACA, or green energy, or EVs, or union empowerment (inb4), or student debt forgiveness, or Chips act, or Pact act, etc, etc. But they did, and it cost them.
I live in a red state, and the Democratic Party cannot even get enough warm bodies to ruin for every office here. The Libertarians do better with their candidates than the Democrats.
The obviously the tactical strategy is to vote libertarian
I've thought about that recently.
In Germany, the 2 historically biggest parties were SPD (used to be liberal-democrat) and CDU (conservative) and they often were the ones tugging it out while the smaller parties were filling in as coalition partners for one or the other.
Over time, the SPD splintered into several semi-big offshoot parties (Linke, for example) while the CDU stayed as a whole. As a result, CDU is now commonly a favorite for getting most votes in an election.
Is that consistent with politics across the globe? And if, why do liberal or center parties tend to split up more than conservatives?
Because conservatives gravitate towards authority, and progressives are looking to break the status quo.
So conservatives value order, authority, and it causes them to fall in line.
Progressives are looking to break that order, believing that things can be better than they are right now. That causes them to infight more often.
Counterexample: The European Parliament. IMHO, it looks like 4 right-wing groups, 2 left-wing ones and 2 centrist ones. While the exact positioning could be argued over, the right wing is quite certainly more fragmented than the left is.
I commonly hear the left is a loose coalition of factions (which can split apart), while the right fall in line. I think there are fewer factions on the right, or the factions are not as far apart, so coming together is easier. They also unite in absolute hatred of the left, so will fall in line to slay that beast.
100% agreed regarding coalitions, unfortunately centrists dont seem to know they are in a coalition, or that the party even has a platform. They are so spooked by trump that they will do or say anything to win. Anything.
Centrists on this thread today accuse Progressives of being members of the far right as a ploy to hide the fact that they are the ones pushing far right policies themselves. The centrists are much closer to being republicans anymore than they are to adhering to the traditional democratic party platform. Real Democrats wouldnt risk the drinking water of the whole continent to enable more fracking to big oil company donations. They wouldnt be ok with more school shootings to pander to the NRA donations (especially when the NRA is heavily infiltrated by Russia). And they wouldnt sponsor and enable a far rightwing genocidal war in the middle east -- pitting us against the entire rest of the world-- to draw foreign lobbying donations. But American progressives are somehow willing to swallow every bit of that traitorous behavior except one to get over the finish line together, whereas centrists are willing to change not a single damn thing to win, and proceed to whine and threaten.
So vote for them regardless and then they will listen?
Dems need all 3 (presidency, house of reps, Senate) to do pretty much anything. They've had that for [drumroll please] 4 out of the last 24 years. Or 6 of the last 32 years. Or 6 of the last 44 fucking years.
It was significantly shorter than that when you consider Senate control to be 60, which is what's needed to bypass the fillibuster.
Supermajority was 4 months, out of the last 44 years. But whenever I mention that people think I'm fixated on that for some reason.
*Oh downvoted already. Some people really don't like hearing this.
They honored the fillibuster by choice. They didnt have to.
They never had 51 votes to repeal the fillibuster. Sinema and Manchin both refused to do so. Neither of which are Democrats anymore. We should elect more Democrats to the Senate that will.
"Biden says eliminating filibuster would "throw the entire Congress into chaos"" https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/joe-biden-town-hall-filibuster/
Thats not how politics works buddy. If what you said were true neither the dems or republicans would have passed any bills in the history of the "republic". Clearly theres also horse trading, and bribery/lobbying you are pretending dont exist in order to make this weak point.
With the obstructionist MAGA caucus in your government that would rather vote no to bipartisan bills because it would give a Democrat a win, barely any bills get passed!
This is an incorrect framing of the situation. You aren't being asked for a Yes/No vote on Democrats. You are being asked if you prefer Democrats or Republicans. Or for this election, if you prefer Democracy or Fascism. If you vote "no preference", that does not communicate "I prefer the Democrats, but want them to move further left", either logically or politically.
There are lots of ways to communicate desired policy changes: letter-writing, primaries (including campaigning/funding for candidates), protests, marches, press, social-media, etc. Voting against your interest is not one of them.
I understand why you'd say this. But you arent trying to understand why people are trying to pressure the dem leadership to be better.
I absolutely understand the anger at the Democratic party. I mention several useful activities to work toward fixing its many failings. The Republican party is strictly worse. Giving equal support to both is counterproductive.
The more elections the far right loses, the more the overton window shifts to the left.
I dont think thats true all the time. as we have seen with Biden, If a dem president is a centrist or far right for a dem, it shifts the entire party and the judiciary rightward. These things have monentum.
So I'd say its not simply the "D" that matters in overton shift. It also sets the topics in the political conversation, and either strengthens the party for the next election or leaves it in shattered and misaligned, like we are now about the unpopular far right wing genocide being pushed by a democratic US presidential administration.
Democrats move further right to get votes from the center but when they win it'll go left trust me bro
They go to the center when they lose. If they don't lose, they don't need to go to the center to find voters. You can see my other comment, they've only had all 3 houses for 4 out of the last 24 years.
you totally ignore that the Dems could simply represent the will of their constituents and not lose, and not need to "look for votes" outside the boundaries of their party. Kamala would be coasting to vicotry if she wasnt supporting Bidens dirty far right war. She is trying hard to not represent the Dems and take a far right stand on this, and thats the root of this problem. Not Progressive voters or the youth.
Seriously? Every time they run a left platform or enact a left policy, they lose. Why do I bother, ciao.
This, but unironically.
The odds of Democrats keeping the Senate seem dismal. So it sounds like we're giving the party license to do nothing for another two years
I like how you twist that to "party license". If the ~~people~~ voters vote that way, that is the will of the ~~people~~ voters. Don't like it? Vote. For Dems. (Though the GOP bear some responsibility being obstructionist pos.)
Sorry 50M Californians, but 40k West Virginians decided to go a different way. Guess this means no civil rights for another two years.
This is aimed at those people that think not voting or voting 3rd party is effective to "make Dems listen". It is not. Voters have a say.