294
Sad, but rule
(pawb.social)
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 10 May 2024
294 points (98.7% liked)
196
16494 readers
2570 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why on earth would they move left if there's no risk of losing? They want to enact right wing policies because that's what their donors pay them to do.
Your question is complete backwards. They can't move left because there is a real chance of losing. You win elections from the center. If you have a risk of losing that means you stay firmly in the center.
That's absolute nonsense. The number of people who are politically engaged swing voters is very marginal. Meanwhile, a full third of the country doesn't vote. You win elections through turnout, and you get turnout by supporting popular policies that actually benefit people.
Alternatively, you can win elections through money, if you can convince the rich that you'll govern in their interests, against the interests of the poor.
The democrats, broadly speaking, prefer to win through the latter method because they get more money that way, but that doesn't make it the most effective method. They just have a loud enough signal to convince people it's the only method.
You literally win from the middle. One switched vote is worth double from the fringes, because you take away from the other party and get one yourself.
And if you run against incumbents, you have to be even more in the middle - think Clinton and Biden. Biden had to run center, although he's acting further left than what he ran on.
Sorry but you're just trying to justify not voting, by pretending that not voting will magically make the party move left. It won't. It's fantasy. Not voting means they will meet in the middle even harder.
You want change? Make the Dems win resoundingly and successively.
Why on earth would you bring up Clinton to support your argument? She did exactly what you described and somehow managed to lose what should've been an extremely easy election. Biden managed to win by a very narrow margin in another extremely easy matchup. Not included in your data set are any candidates who ran more to the left, such as Obama (though he governed far to the right of how he ran).
There's so many more disengaged voters than swing voters that it doesn't matter if swing voters are worth more. Besides, swing voters don't just vote according to a rational policy calculus of centrism. A lot of it is vibes or superficial nonsense.
The dems are not going to magically move left, against their donors interests and the interests they've repeatedly demonstrated they hold, just because they win. Especially if that win comes through unconditional support from the left. They are not your friends, and they don't share your interests. They're careerists pursuing their own advancement.
Bill Clinton is the one that ran against an incumbent. He had to run center. Against Bush senior. Bill Clinton. The one that was actually president. Bill.
Hillary Clinton thank you for bringing that up. She ran on climate war/map room. That and the attacks lost it. But what do you think the window would be if Hillary Clinton won? Easy, it would be further left. You're making my case for me.
And what did the protest no vote do? That's right, fucking handed it to Trump. You're making my case for me
Instead Trump won and guess what happened to the Overton window? It went off the cliff to the right. And it's still there because he won and could win again. You're making this too easy.
Disengaged voters you say. Hey I wonder what they could do. Hmmmmmmmm. Hmmmmm. Hmmmmm. I think they could, wait for it, vote! If you want policy number 475 you have to vote for policy 1 first. That's exactly what happened with GOP, they voted for decades and they finally got roe overturned. You keep making my case.
Doesn't fucking matter. They vote. And guess what, that means they get heard. You keep making my case for me.
Agree the Dems aren't going to magically move left like you think they're going to when you don't vote. They will move with the voters. But you don't like this so you try to say it's all donors and whatever else. It's unbelievable. The way you get things is to change is to vote. This is so incredibly easy but you want to make up excuses and do mental gymnastics. Get dem in the whitehouse and majority in Congress for 20 years straight and watch it fucking move. You do that by voting.
Oh I see you're from .ml. it'll just be more excuses and mental gymnastics. Ciao.
It is, in fact, very easy to have a conversation when you're only having it with yourself.
If you agreed with everything I said, do you think that would make you more correct or less correct? That's right, more correct. Therefore I'm right. You're making my case for me, this is too easy, blah blah blah.
Lmao thank you for confirming your mental gymnastics! You don't even make sense. Kinda figured after you saw your mistake with Bill Clinton. I did some edits though. Ciao for real and you don't get to complain when you don't vote.
Weird that I wouldn't make sense to you considering I just did the exact same thing you did.
You seem knowledgeable enough about the topic to realize that it’s not as cut-and-dry as you’re making it out to be.
In what way?
Elections are massively complicated and a single strategy doesn’t determine who wins and loses. You and the other commenter could both be right (or wrong), depending on the context or circumstances.
Sure, there could be some specific cases where they're correct. But if you can't say anything about elections unless it's generalizable to all circumstances, then you can't say anything about elections at all. I'm speaking generally.