You're viewing a single thread.
Let's run through the recent story so people have it:
(First on FDR, that was before 45 years of anti-communist rhetoric, which frankly turned into anti-government-policy rhetoric.)
Jimmy Carter: Told people to conserve and got voted the fuck out.
Bill Clinton: After successive losses Bill figured out "it's the economy stupid". And when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you have to run from the center. So that's what he did. And he won.
Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters!
Obama: So guess what Obama learned? Don't stick your head out. He ran on broad "hope", hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush's disastrous wars. And he won.
Hillary Clinton: After the population hopefully warmed up with Obama, she stuck her head out just a tiny itty little bit left with the Map Room to fight climate change. And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters!
Biden: Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don't stick your head out left. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. He's actually been governing more from the left, but he ran center.
And people are amazed that they don't run an extreme left platform? Every time they stick their head out a little itsy bitsy tiny bit left they lose. And the next guy learns to go to the center to win.
So how do you get them to move left? By giving them victories. Consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose, like they've lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, they will go to the centre to find votes. You don't get big steps without the small steps.
Revisionist history. To pretend like Hillary went slightly left and Gore didn't have the election stolen from him is disingenuous at best.
They claim Hillary lost because she went a little left and it is the fault of... left wing voters? Hmm.
I'm of the opinion that Hillary lost because of the blatant super delegate shenanigans within the DNC. I know I was LIVID. However, I wasn't one of the folks who were so livid that they protest voted third party. I held my nose, suppressed my gag reflex, and voted for Hillary, though I really didn't want to.
US liberals (in contrast to progressives) exhude such exorbitant amounts of political cretinism that it can be smelt from an ocean away. If you let your arrogance get in the way of properly analyzing what could you have done differently in order to win the election, you're incompetent in politics. But they're too emotionally immature to understand that if they want to ensure the vote of their natural allies to their left, they need to reach out to them, not flaunt their contempt.
Ah, amazing to see how leftists get berated by liberals all the time here, but once criticisms of the same magnitude get levied against liberals, moderators remove the comments. Are we headed towards becoming like Reddit now?
We're seeing it now with leftists who refuse to vote for Biden. Thankfully Lemmy isn't really representative of the population. But they do exist.
We are entering perhaps the most important election in history. I know that's said at every election but this time, this could very well be the last free election we have.
A vote against Biden, regardless of how it's done, is a vote for fascism. Plain and simple. It's no longer theoretical or fantasy. Or exaggeration or whatever the right is trying to paint this as.
Biden won in 2020 because it was a vote against Trump. Not because Biden was a good candidate. It just was not as terrible as Trump.
We are entering an election where Trump is promising to punish his enemies. This rhetoric is dangerous to our democracy and nation. The fact that we are debating this is by itself scary.
Trump WILL bring authoritarianism to our country. He will install himself as king and our country will be a democracy in name only. Hell it wouldn't surprise me if the fascist regime goes on to rename our country "The Democratic Republic of the
GilliadUnited States" just to keep up appearances.Anyone who wants our country to be free must vote Biden in November. Is he contributing to genecide? Yes. Is he doing enough for climate change? Of course note. Is he tackling minimum wage? Nope.
But at least he's willing to listen to you. We might even be able to change his mind after he is in his second term.
You will get none of those things if Trump wins.
Honestly I think this is it. Do you think project 2025 goes away just because Trump does? It'll just be updated for 29 and as soon as the next Republican wins that's it, shows over. We can't keep pretending that winning this election will defeat them once and for all. It's just kicking the nuclear bomb down the road a bit. Eventually it will catch up and we will be living under a dictatorship anyways.
This is a terrible point of view.
We can't keep pretending that winning this election will defeat them once and for all.
No one is pretending this. We keep authoritarianism and fascism at bay through constant vigilance. We defeat them by resisting and rejecting them at every turn.
The idea that we should just give up is asinine.
I'm not saying to give up, I'm saying I want to see the Democrats do anything to protect us from a future Republican presidency other than hoping they'll be elected for the rest of time (which is an impossibility let's be real here)
If lemmy was representative of the population, trump wouldnt even be a concern. Unless he starts running an ML campaign
left wing voters? Hmm.
No, the left wing non-voters, that didn't vote in protest.
That had nothing to do with that election or any election
There was actual fraud at play, stop blaming people fed up with this bullshit
Maybe you reply replied to the wrong message, because the left wing protest non-voters have to do with every single election.
Hillary lost because she coasted through the end of her run. Everybody thought Trump wouldn't stand a chance. We had more faith in people.
That and conservative psyops getting Bernie Bros to abstain from holding their nose and voting Hillary because they felt like they were being wronged.
Hey wait a sec that last part is happening again today...
Through the end? Most of her campaign was coasting by on solid blue areas and ignoring whole parts of the country.
So many people were surprised by her loss in 2016, but I saw it coming months away. The fact that her campaign pushed trump as a pied piper candidate and gave him credibility because they thought she could easily beat him is just the icing on the turd cake.
I said Hilary went an itsy bitsy teeny weeny bit left with the map room to fight climate change. That's what she did. And she lost. Thanks protest non voters!
Did we have President Gore? No we did not. We can talk all day about this or that, but we did not have President Gore. Thanks 3rd party protest voters!
Hillary lost because she was a corrupt, out of touch (Pokemon go to the polls), unlikable piece of shit who stole the primary from Bernie (as shown by the John Podesta email leaks). She also used the "pied piper" strategy to help Trump win the RNC primary because she thought he was the most beatable candidate. Voters didn't even know she wanted to fight climate change because she never talked about it. She also participated hardcore in voter shaming (which is also what you're doing) and ran a pro-corporate, right wing campaign against Trump in the general. No shit, she lost, especially in the Rust Belt, which Bernie was doing well in according to polls.
Al Gore lost because the Republican party refused to count several votes in Florida, claiming that hanging and dented chads were not valid. It was later found with a recount that Gore won that election.
When leftist voters have to choose between corporate right and corporate right, they will sit out, protest vote, or begrudgingly vote for the Democrat due to a lack of a better option. Voter shaming is extremely toxic and will actively repel leftist voters.
Voters need something to vote for, not against.
Whatever else you can say, Hillary was not channeling a lot of enthusiasm outside of a very narrow group.
It felt like there were weeks in peak campaign season where she wasn't touring or making speeches. What even was her signature issue? (Considering how she was associated with the abortive attempts towards universal health care during Bill's term, that would have been a sensible focus, but I don't recall it mentioned once)
The whole campaign reeked of "play to not lose" rather than "play to win". She assumed she was the annointed favourite, guaranteed the win, and that's not really going to excite uncommitted voters. Bernie, at least, generated buzz.
Hillary thought that the elites decide elections and not the voters, so she appealed to the elites more than the voters.
The whole campaign reeked of “play to not lose” rather than “play to win”.
Dewey Defeats Truman moment
"Happy Birthday to this future President" more like.
i see how it fits your theory but her leftness wasnt why people didn't vote for her. she didnt bother campaigning in the states that mattered and she acted entitled, and Bernie Sanders stole hearts while she stole DNC. etc etc.
She did so some campaigning early in those states. It turned out that the more they saw of her, the less they liked her. Her campaign kept her out of those states because she was a liability to her own campaign. Trump ran on fighting for average Americans. (Bullshit of course). Hillary ran on scolding the candidate offering change.
Let's try the more recent history again.
Obama ran on "hope" but, more importantly ,"change" and won in a landslide. Then he governed from the center as a status quo technocrat. He lost a Democratic super majority and almost the presidency to a slice of white bread.
Hillary Clinton was the most establishment centrist candidate the Democrats could have possibly run. Her campaign thought they could sweep the country by choosing a radical clown for the Republican opponent. They helped the Trump campaign get free media attention to win the primary, then they lost to the clown.
After 4 years of the clown, the country would have elected a ham sandwich. Even so, it was looking a bit close, so Biden did what most Democrats do in a close election and leaned left, almost sounding like Bernie lite at times. You can chart his popularity through his presidency and every uptick coincides with a move to the left, and every downtick with a move to the right.
Biden did what most Democrats do in a close election and leaned left
In a close election, and when running against an incumbent, Dems go to the center. Because that's where the voters are.
You're the first person I've ever heard say Biden leaned left.
I think you might just be a time traveler from the 90s. Everyone expected Biden to run further to the center but he did the opposite. Here is a partial list of his left leaning promises.
- Free community college
- Universal Pre-K
- Student debt forgiveness
- Double Pell Grants
- Expand Social Security
- Increase refugee admissions
- Expand path to citizenship
- Raise taxes on the wealthy
- Raise corporate tax rate
- Strengthen unions
- Bring back manufacturing
- Expand broadband access
- Voting rights for felons
- Eliminate mandatory minimums
- Eliminate cash bail
- End private detention centers
- Decriminalize Marijuana
- Lower cost of prescription drugs
- $15 federal minimum wage
- 12 weeks paid medical leave
- 7 days paid vacation
- Rejoin Paris Agreement
- Green energy assistance for disadvantaged communities
- Block new fracking
- Offer a public option
- Create public health jobs corps
- Restore engagement with Cuba
- Constitutional amendment to eliminate private funding of elections
- Reverse transgender military ban
The thing is, that the left-right spectrum isn't the only axis that voters use to evaluate politicians anymore. A mich more important axis is now pro/anti establishment. Americans almost universally despise the DC establishment. Hillary represented that establishment, while Trump mocked it. Trump was a message in the form of a molotov cocktail.
He certainly paid lip service to the left.
Still waiting on any semblance of substantive policy regarding healthcare, student debt, income inequality, or labour rights.
Remember when the rail workers tried to strike and R̶e̶a̶g̶a̶n̶ Biden told them to get back to work?
Of course, this all pales in comparison to the giant genocide elephant in the room...
Rail union https://youtu.be/EM6jMtG_MB8
If you are unaware of the massive changes the department of labor has made under Biden, then you don't care all that much about unions. Biden has been great on labor issues.
He has been forgiving student debt piecemeal to get around Republican obstruction, so far forgiving around 10%. It's not what we want, but it's also targeted to the people needing it most.
Biden isn't the leftist firebrand I want him to be, but he's been way better than I anticipated. He is easily the furthest left president since at least Carter, though that's a low bar.
Unfortunately the most I can say on Palestine is that Trump would be a whole lot worse. Biden has been putting a lot more pressure on Netanyaho than he gets credit for, but that's understandable given the rhetoric he uses publicly.
Holy shit trying to blame hillarys loss on being too progressive. Somehow more progressive than Obama.
It's not like it's hard to be more Progressive than Obama
No, but we are talking relative to hillary
I said itsy tiny little bit left with the map room. How many adjectives do you need? No one is saying she was far left, again see adjectives. That's what she ran on and bam she lost the election. Thanks protest no voters!
Have you considered why you have to use so many adjectives? Because she didnt at all run on a progressive platform. And you are claiming Obama won for not running on any progressiveness. He extensively ran on climate change and healthcare reform. Youve stretched your characterizations so far to try to fit your theory that you put Hillary to the left of Obama. Maybe its your theory that needs changing instead.
I use those adjectives because you want to change it to "she's not [far] left". And I'm clarifying what her position was. It was just a tiny bit left.
The number of adjectives is because people like to skip over it l, so I add more to get people to notice. And you're still at it! That's twice that you try to force words into my mouth. So ciao.
“she’s not [far] left”
Hey speaking of words in peoples mouths
Ok take out the far.
You're saying she's not left. And: I didn't say she's left, I said she ran a teeny weeny itsy little bit left with the map room to fight climate change. And you wonder why I have the adjectives lol.
I promise you I see the words. The problem is that Obama won his elections, so you can only downplay her progressiveness so far. I wouldnt characterize his campaigns as being itsy bitsy teeny weeny left. You mentioned him campaigning on the word Hope, but he also famously campaigned on "Change we can believe in".
Bro you just look like you don't know how to read. Take the L
Riveting rebuttal
Not a rebuttal, a description.
And you're not just a itsy tiny little bit wrong
You really drank the Hillary/DNC kool aid if you're still blaming protest voters in 2024.
And the double think in your post is glaring by the way. She went a tiny bit to the left and bam she loses the election because protest voters refused to vote for her? How does this even add up?
No she lost because she was an establishment candidate out of touch with the will of the people who ran on her privilege rather than her policies. So out of touch that she had to manipulate the primary to even get into the general. And so out of touch that rather than accepting the loss and taking responsibility for it, she shamed voters.
It was two fold why Hilary lost. Trump appealed to manufacturing class. And the left wing protest no voted.
because protest voters refused to vote for her? How does this even add up?
Well since you had a fun tone I'll take a fun tone. JFC because left voters did not show up. Instead of showing up, the left voters protest no voted. She stuck her head a tiny bit left with the map room and climate change, and the left wing did not show up to vote and instead did a no vote protest.
Right but the way your framing it you're acting like she moved a little bit to the left and that was the reason that left voters didn't vote for her.
At least that's the way I'm understanding what you are saying which is why I asked. I wasn't having fun. It was an honest question so I could hope to understand your position better.
I was having fun with my Kool-Aid comment. But that was a different paragraph.
A whole other way to frame this is that Hillary's nepotism and the DNC lost that election by assuming that the left owes them their vote. Rather than thinking that politicians should earn our votes, and that the DNC should listen to the their base if they want voter turn out.
You can get into whatever psychological analysis you want (and I'll do mine), at the end of it left voters don't show up. She moved a little bit left with map room to fight climate change, a policy that should have been important to left voters, and left voters did not show up.
So the next candidate Biden learns he has to go to the center to find voters. This is what happens every single time. Every time. Happened with Carter & Bill Clinton, happened with Gore & Obama, happened with Hilary & Biden.
If you or any other voter want things to go left, you have to give dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
Right, because she didn't move far enough to the left. That's what I was saying about she needed to turn out her base too.
And as I said in my other comment I think protest voting is petty and stupid. But I think Hillary's sense of entitlement was a huge fucking turn off to lots of people including voters on the left but also centrists.
So this is a situation of mutual responsibility. And blaming voters for not showing up when Hillary didn't do her part to encourage them to show up I don't think it's helpful either.
Sigh. You take small steps before big steps. You walk before you run. You stick your toes in before a big plunge. And when they do, the voters never come out. They. Never. Show. Up.
Never, not for Carter, not for Gore, not for Hilary.
What do they learn from this? The left voters never show up. Don't bother trying to court them because they never show up. Or even stronger, you'd be an absolute fool to try to court them because they. Never. Show. Up.
They learn to go to the center to find voters. And guess fucking what? Those voters show up. So guess fucking what? That's where they go. Every. Single. Time.
Mutual responsibility? Dems have tried. And they've paid with losses. Every. Single. Time. So they go to the center to find votes. Waiting for some big left platform is not going to work. Because dems stick their toes left and lose. See all the phrases again, walk before you run. Non-voters holding out like it's a Mexican standoff when it's not, the Dems see they just have to go to the center instead every time they lose.
But you did say she moved "too far" left - if it was her itsy bitsy move left that caused non-voter protests, that is literally by definition "too far."
But you're misidentifying the cause here, while somehow still ending up at the right conclusion.
She very well may have lost because of non-voter protestors, but it was because she wasn't far enough left. And if Hillary had actually moved further left to win those protestors' votes, she would have lost the center vote. And Biden may very well lose for the same reason, so the lesson should be if you don't want Trump to win, then don't protest vote simply because Biden isn't far enough left.
too far
Ctrl+F "too far" and 0 results. Nope I didn't say "too far".
What I'm saying is that she stuck her head a tiny bit left, and guess what happened? The voters didn't turn out. They protest no-voted. As in, the left voters never show up. (or excruciatingly rarely) Candidates at various times stick their head a tiny bit left trying to court those voters, but nope the voters don't show up.
You think they have to go even more, but every time they run left in any amount (either Gore or Hilary) the voters don't show up. This is how it works, you go a little bit left, and see if you win. Sorry you don't go extreme left to see if you win, you stick your toes in first. And every time the Dems do, they lose. So what does the next candidate learn? Don't go left, because they don't show up and you lose. They learn you go to the center to find votes.
The message to left voters is: If you want things to move left, then you have to show up. The dems have learnt time and time again that you can't count on left voters. So they go to the center to find voters. If you want things to move left, then give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. You have to take small steps before big steps. You have to walk before you run. Not just president, congress too because again they will go center to find congress votes.
What I’m saying is that she stuck her head a tiny bit left, and guess what happened? The voters didn’t turn out.
So you're saying that she went too far left for the electorate right? Or are you saying her going left had no appreciable impact, because she didn't go left at all and these massive paragraphs you're writing are just an exercise in pretending to be a LLM?
She moved a little bit left and the voters did not show up. C'mon.
So the latter?
What is going on here. She went a little bit left and lost (because the left voters didn't show up). So the next candidate learns to go to the center to find voters (because the left voters don't show up). Every single time.
I just went to find and link my explanation to someone else just to find that it's what you responded to. If you don't get it then you are really trying hard to not get it and/or discussing in bad faith. Ciao.
I'm not arguing in bad faith, you're making an argument that has zero substance to it. There's not a fucking argument to be had here.
If you're saying both simultaneously that Hilary went left and that she didn't go left, you're just arguing with yourself.
You walk before you run. You take small steps before big steps. That is how it works. Why am I bothering, I'm out.
Okay, it sounds like you're saying the same thing - that Hillary tried to convince left wing voters she is on their side, and they protested because it "wasn't enough." Your original statement made it sound like she lost because she tried to move slightly left.
She did lose because she moved a little bit left and the voters did not show up.
No, they protested in spite of her trying to move left, not because she tried to move left.
Although I'll admit it's a distinction without a difference. Democrats are going to continue to refuse to move farther left if we don't vote because we think they're not left enough.
You're making no sense. Protest no vote in spite of her moving a little bit left is an oxymoron. Unless you meant protest no vote to spite her. In which case it doesn't matter because of exactly what I'm saying, left voters don't show up. You'd be an absolute fool to court voters that never show up, (again when you walk before you run). So candidates go to the center to find voters that do show up.
Are you saying that if Hillary had rejected the map room proposal, then left wing voters would have turned out to vote for her?
That's ridiculous to think that moving further right would have got more left voters to turn out to vote.
Meaning the map room proposal had no effect on left wing voters, because it wasn't enough. It did not cause them to protest.
No I'm not. I think you don't know what "in spite of" means. The correct usage of that expression would be: "The far left wing wanted Hillary to move far left. But they voted for her anyway in spite of her only moving a little bit left."
This entire conversation has been you (intentionally or otherwise) misreading and/or misinterpreting and/or twisting words, so I'm leaving this conversation. I think I've explained things well enough.
And you end up with the stupid idealist 3rd party voters that think “we’ll send a message with how we vote!” (Or don’t vote) not realizing the true impact they’re causing and the message it sends by having to go back to the center (which inches right more and more each time).
3rd party does have a place, but not right now with how screwed up things are.
Its forever going to be "not right now" for you, so we're not waiting anymore, its only going to happen if we make it right now.
No, no it’s not. And if Trump is elected again, it’s on anyone who things as much.
Its on people pushing a candidate they dont even like. Happened with hillary, its happening again with genocide joe. Let us support progressive candidates we like
What happened with Hillary is that idiots decided to vote third party for a planted candidate and fucked everything up. Dividing progressive votes means a loss for progressives in every case. You will be part of the problem when Trump gets reelected and dismantles democracy. That will be the end of voting and the reemergence of mass suffrage. Oh and I forgot, climate change will continue to get worse and people will start getting sick because Trump has already promised to end climate/pollution regulations. Equal rights will be stripped and slavery will be brought back even for white people because, chances are, minimum wage will be wiped out. This dude plans to do so much damage if/when he gets back in office.
Dividing progressive votes means a loss for progressives in every case.
I agree, we should all vote for the progressive candidate.
genocide joe
Tell me you’re a Russian supporter, without telling me you’re a Russian supporter… that’s all I needed to know, thanks for playing.
Tell me you like painting others as strawmen without telling me you're painting people as strawmen.
Voter shaming will only make less people vote.
Many people need something to vote for, not against.
He loses the nickname when he stops funding genocide. Shoot, might even get our vote too.
And by "make it happen" you mean help get Trump elected and usher in a fascist dictatorship.
Maybe one day you'll entertain the notion that disregarding progressive voters and pushing a candidate you dont like could be to blame for trump winning, like in 2016.
I'm sorry our bloc is too small to be properly represented on the national stage.
Bill Clinton didn't run to the center, he ran to the right. Well past the center.
Take that one however far center or right you want to, the point is that's what he had to do to find votes (after successive Dem losses).
Campaign funding mostly. Which translated into votes.
At the end of the day, votes is what wins elections. He had to go to the center (or as the other guy thinks, the right) to find votes.
To find funding from oligarchs for campaigning in order to get votes.
Nothing has a single cause and condition.
Another way to look at it is that Clinton sold out. A third is that he was being pragmatic.
Either way moving to the center didn't win him votes with centrist voters as much as it allowed him to campaign effectively against an incumbent that was heavily backed by corporate finances.
It wasn't being centrist that won over voters in other words. It was being cenrist that won over oligarchs.
We're going to have to disagree.
I think it was to find voters. At the end of the election they count votes, not donations. If all these left wing
voterspeople that I see on this platform were to actually vote, then wow that would have an effect. But instead they think protest 3rd party or protest no-voting works, when it doesn't. All these supposed informed, logicalvoterspeople that are just waiting in the wind for that left platform and then they'll vote. Donations don't sway these people, they want the big left platform, which won't appear because they don't show up and vote.So what can voters do? Vote for the dems. If you want things to go left, then vote and give dems consistent and overwhelming victories.
I mean I'm voting for Biden Don't get me wrong. And I think protest voting is a petty act of rebellion that doesn't really help.
But I also think acting like your entitled to votes rather than needing to spend effort turning out your base, is also a wrong view.
I guess I'm saying both Hillary and protest voters caused what happened in 2016. As well as the DNC betting on an establishment candidate when the pulse of the country was obviously sick of that shit.
Entitled? They try to move a little bit left and they fucking lose. They aren't going to go further left lol. What's that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting different results lol. In this case it's doubling down and expecting different results - not going to happen. They're going to go to the center to get those votes.
So guess what Obama learned? Don't stick your head out. He ran on broad "hope", hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush's disastrous wars.
The "Hope" slogan was coined by Shepard Fairey on the poster of Obama he created and distributed independently of the Obama campaign, albeit with tacit approval. The campaign's actual slogans were "Change you can believe in" and "Yes we can."
You also left out that Clinton only won because Perot was in the race and took voters from Bush, Carter lost because of the gas shortages, not to conserve and Biden won because he was against a historically unpopular incumbent. Your explanation is in complete and reductionist.
You also left out Kerry who ran as a moderate and lost to Bush.
This just isn't true. There is a wealth of scholarly writing on the subject from both political science and statistics approaches. Clinton wins with or without Perot.
The DNC pursued a policy of progressive policy to counter Bush.
Obama won and the party immediately began shifting right. Eight years of pulling away from progressive policy.
And then Trump won, at which point you saw a leftist presence being entertained again by his midterms.
So to answer your final question: The record shows victories appear to cause the Democratic Party to move right. Often argued as a result or consequence of any implemented leftist policy. Backlash, if you will, but still.
Obama won and the party immediately began shifting right. Eight years of pulling away from progressive policy.
Guess how many years Obama had a Dem House of Representatives and Dem Senate? 2 years. Not 8. Only 2. That's when we got the ACA though.
Contrary to how many people talk the president is not a King. The president does not pass laws, Congress does. And Dems need control of all 3 (presidency, house of reps, and Senate) to pass much of anything. So when the lose control, like they lost control for 6 years of Obama's presidency, they have to reach across the aisle. Do you remember what happened? The GOP shut down the government under Obama.
Obama had 1 victory and then 3 losses. 1 victory for 2 years and then 3 losses for 6 of his years.
You want them to not reach across the aisle? Then give Dems victories in all 3 of house of reps, Senate, and presidency.
(Btw guess how much the Dems have had all 3. They have had it for 4 years out of the last 24 years. That's right. They basically never have it. Want to include Bill Clinton? Then it's 6 years of the last 32 years. What to go back further? Then it's 6 years of the last 44 years. Read that again: 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years. And if you want filibuster proof majority, them it's 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. Not 4 years, 4 MONTHS of the last 44 years. You need to readjust what you think are victories.)
I think you read way more into what I wrote. Obama won. Party moved right. Both statements of fact. The 'backlash' I mentioned.
But alright.
Progressivism has strong resistance, as demonstrated. It takes a leader like FDR to withstand that resistance and marshal their party towards a political goal. The president is the executive branch but they are also the effective leader of their party's and their political goals.
Leaders who buckle under pressure or demand their followers or voters lead the way for them are incredibly weak. Lame ducks. A failure.
I didn't "read into it", I explained how government works. You missed the entire reason why Obama had to reach across the aisle. Which he had to do for 6 of the 8 years of his presidency. I'm tempted to write why but it was all written out above.
If you think "Obama won" and "[be a] leader" is how it works, then you desperately need to learn how it actually works.
I don't really know why you're working on such a condescending manner over something I am in no disagreement about? That's what I meant by reading into it? FDR absolutely acted as a leader for his Party and marshaled forward progressive legislation and policies. And yes, you have clearly and dismissively explained that Obama absolutely did not. There should be no disagreement here.
The DNC from 05-09 operated on a progressive platform to reach out everywhere in all 50 states. That strategy ended in 09 right after Obama took office. Here's an article from 2009 talking about the division that already existed in before those 6 remaining years. I am sorry for any paywall, its a nyt thing but its to show that there was a clear rightward movement from the start.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/health/policy/26dems.html
As a result: Obama spent his presidency reaching out to republicans and mostly being humiliated. I don't disagree with you. It is what happened.
Sigh. I'm explaining how things work.
Obama absolutely did not. There should be no disagreement here.
Big disagreement. You seem to think "acted as a leader" is all that matters and all that's necessary. I'm saying that's dead wrong. Congress is what matters. The house of resentatives is what matters. The Senate is what matters. That's how it works. The president can't do much without the House of Representatives and the Senate.
President can't do jack shit with all the leadership in the world if he does not have congress, if he does not have the house of representatives, if he does not have the senate.
So you want to talk the first two years of Obama? He likely reached out for two reasons. One: he wanted to mend the divisions after Bush's disastrous wars. Get the country unified and back on track and all that jazz. Two: any intelligent candidate knows it's unlikely they're going to have control of Congress for all eight years, so he wanted to come off as reasonable and could be worked with, so that he could still accomplish things later in his presidency. I barely blame him for that. Who knew that the GOP was going to explode and become obstructionist to that degree because a half black man got elected. (Btw that's why allusions to FDR don't cut anything today. Completely different time.) (Also btw Biden learned from that and said nuts to it, he's doing what needs to be done.)
Now back to the main point about Obama and how leadership is not the be all of everything. If anything Obama proves this. Obama had leadership (if you want to say that). But Obama only had Congress the first two out of his eight years. The remaining six years he did not have congress. The GOP had Congress. All the leadership in the world did not matter because he did not have Congress for six of his eight years. All the leadership in the world for six of his eight years did not matter. And this was proven when not when the GOP shut down the government under Obama. Congress. has. control. Leadership does not matter (in that way). Control of Congress is what matters.
I didn't say leadership was the end all be all. I said it was a feature of FDR: the topic of the post, and by extension: being a poor or weak leader is a disaster for a party. I used the term 'lame-duck' which is a common term for a weakened president whose party doesn't have control of legislative branch.
I don't see how stating the features of an effective or ineffective presidency so quickly translates to some total lack of understanding how American governance or legislation works. Nor do I see how it demonstrates an extremely narrow position I don't hold or have argued for. Your need to explain is condescending, arrogant, and entirely unnecessary.
There is a term called "bully pulpit". It is a very common and well known concept in politics. FDR used it well. Obama did not. FDR was a very successful president. Obama was not, at least not for progressives or leftists.
Obama had leadership (if you want to say that).
For the level of argumentative browbeating you're engaging ing and then you... FFS.
I didn't say leadership was the end all be all.
Honestly the most I can get from your previous replies is that leadership does it, accomplishes it, etc And I'm explaining to you that it's control of Congress.
The context in which you used lame duck was in the context of lack of leadership. Not a lack of party control of Congress.
FDR: the topic of the post,
You replied to my comment which was about recent history. I'm explaining why you/the post can't just say "but FDR did it and was popular, so why can't anyone else".
president. Obama was not, at least not for progressives or leftist
Because he did not have congress. That's what matters. Because the GOP became incredibly obstructionist.
Honestly I have no idea what your position is anymore. You seem to briefly admit it's Congress, then (from what I can gather) you're right back to leadership with the bully pulpit. I think I've explained well enough that leadership does not matter (in that way). It's Congress. If you the voter want progress, then you vote in Dem congresses, because a Dem president with all the leadership in the world is not enough.
Btw I'm not responding your repeated attacks on me. I may be a bit exasperated and to the point, but that's because there's way bad information out there and honestly that's pretty much what I see from you with this stuff about leadership, and why Obama had to reach across the aisle later in his presidency.
Obama had leadership (if
yousomeone wants to say that).Ok I'll clarify that to someone, didn't mean you specifically, someone in the general population.
I feel there is an orange man missing in this timeline.
they've lost 20 years out of the last 24 years
Where are those numbers from? Presidential elections from the last 24 years don’t add up. Are you only counting election years? Or something other than presidential elections?
- 🟥2000: GW
- 🟥2004: GW
- 🟦2008: Obama
- 🟦2012: Obama
- 🟥2016: Trump
- 🟦2020: Biden
They've had control of all three (house of representatives, Senate, and presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years. The first 2 years under Obama, then the first 2 years under Biden.
You need all three to actually pass anything. Dems especially because they want to pass progressive things and GOP is more that happy to block it. And they can block with only 1 of any of those 3, which the GOP has had for 20 of the last 24 years.
The president is not a king. Congress (house of representatives and the Senate) passes laws.
*If you want to go further back, then it's 6 years of the last 32 years. Want even more? Then it's 6 years of the last 44 years.
You also need a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate which the Democrats have had even less time with, so that 4 years when they could pass legislation is actually significantly shorter. Last time they had full control was during Obama, that lasted 4 months and they passed the ACA.
I appreciate much of your list and accept the danger of the third party vote.
And while that's partly a result of right-wing and foreign operatives seeking to wedge-drive the Democratic coalition, it's also a reflection of lack of voter enthusiasm and greater apathy.
Like it or not, for better or worse, elections in the US are popularity contests akin to shitty reality TV. It's not about who is more qualified; it's not about experience or education. As much as it should be, it IS NOT a job interview.
Whoever stands out, for better or worse, tends to win. Obama was different. He stood out; he won. JFK was different. He stood out; he won. Trump was different. He stood out; he won.
Hillary was boring. Uncharismatic. Anything but new. Carrying the baggage of decades of right-wing smere. Poll after poll of voter enthusiasm was in the gutter.
Voter enthusiasm for Biden was shit, too. But Biden stood out because he was at least different from Trump.
If Dems wanted to ensure victory they'd yank Biden and run someone fresh, young, charismatic, likable. Easy win. Why? Because they stand out, the right-wing taking-points and marching orders wouldn't be prepared, and people would be excited for something different.
What I see a ton of on Lemmy is the supposed logical voter. Who's waiting for the logical policy, and the logical platform, and the logical position. And they will logically wait for it, and until then they will logically not vote, in logical protest, to send a logical message. Because they are the be all of logic.
And what I'm saying is that if you want to be productive and effective in moving the window left, you accomplish that by electing Dems. Consistently and overwhelmingly. Because every time they lose they go to the center to find votes.
I agree. I also think it's important to note that the nature of entropy dictates it's far easier for Republicans to cripple the nation and set us back than to rebuild let alone add extensions. So for me a vote for Biden is above-all damage control.
Still I only wish we could curate better candidates because I think we can eat our cake and still have it. This appeal to the middle in terms of policy; this watering down our rhetoric tends to shoot ourselves in the foot in the long-run.
Stagnation (and regression) is easy.
Progress requires effort, hard work, and time. And all 3 houses (house of reps, Senate, presidency) to actually pass anything.
Don't disagree with that either. I just think:
- Voter enthusiasm is vital to winning elections.
- You inspire the grassroots coalition who actually does the canvassing, the phone-banking, the viral fundraising, the viral word-of-mouth, the pushback against trolls on social media, and the convincing of parents and uncles at Thanksgiving Dinner by inspiring said grassroots who make up the foundation of a solid Democratic campaign.
- Once you have YOUR base who believes in their candidate strongly, then that becomes influential in drawing others to your banner as well.
- So I hope in time, Democrats stop watering down their rocket-fuel of policy to appeal to ignorance of this magical moderate or Republican swing-voter, which then just backfires because the fuel is too watered-down to have the policy breach the atmosphere, and then we have the next cycle go, "well we gave Democrats a chance and look what they did." In time, I hope we stand by our policy the way Republicans stand by theirs. Such conviction is persuasive.
I already said, I am talking to the supposed logical voter that I see everywhere on lemmy, who logics and you know what I already said it all.
Changing the winning candidate at the eleventh hour for a nobody is definitely the worst thing Democrats could do.
Who would they even pick that the majority of Americans have heard of?
If the news dropped at the right time, it would be free publicity across social media and every corporate media outlet nonstop until election day. Not necessarily a nobody, but just someone less in the spotlight.
I'm pretty certain given my previous arguments that a young and semi-charismatic individual could sweep the election solely on age and freshness alone. And I'd say Kamala, but she's uncharismatic and conservatives already have talking-points written up for her.
Considering the current polls, leaving Biden in is frankly just as if not more risky in my view. (disclaimer: I'm voting for Biden, of course).
That's impossibly risky and there's already been primaries. And the fact you don't have a name and are proposing this shows there simply isn't anyone.
Republicans would eat them alive. So close to the end it'd scream desperation of the worst kind by the Democrats and everyone would assume Biden was dying.
I can't come up with a plan that would ensure another Trump presidency with more certainly than that.
As I said, it's impossibly risky right now as it is. In what should be an obvious slam-dunk, Biden has largely remained stagnant in polls with Trump catching up in fundraising no less. There are no perfect options; only dilemmas. Clearly I'm spit-balling here and I'm no advisor so that's not lost on me. However: I'm not the only one talking about this. Just yesterday's Washington Week round-table episode on PBS had them talking about this.
The fact that I don't have a name is quite honestly irrelevant. There are are PLENTY of candidates on the left that fulfill that niche of youth and charisma: Booker is one example if you really need one. Nevertheless it's irrelevant because if we can't name it, then Republicans can't predict it. And we know the right-wing media largely controls the narrative in this country; and the less time you give them to develop talking-points, the better. I've already proved that Likability, Youth, Charisma are the KEY adjectives to winning elections for Democrats. WHO within that subset almost doesn't even matter -- for we know what issues concern the vast majority of voters RIGHT NOW: Age of candidates, and they're sick of both of their faces. That's quite literally all the info we need to know. So if you accept the premise that we run an American Idol contest for Presidency, then I believe my argument is quite solid.
There's no desperation in giving the electorate what they are asking for. Look at the polls for yourself detailing their reasons for apathy or dislike for the candidates.
Finally, Primaries don't reflect general election performance. Hillary beat Bernie; but Bernie would've likely done better against Trump. It's not like Democrats who voted Hillary would suddenly not vote for Bernie come November with Trump on the ballot.
Yep. America just isn't that left in general. The right had the benefit of a cult of personality pushing fear to motivate voters. But being seen as left is still considered radical by a lot of Americans, unfortunately.
Edit: others below will continue fine reasons to shit on Hillary because Bernie just wasn't popular enough.