LogFAQs > #951560338

Inviso posted...

No, I can't say that I'm one hundred percent right. I'll admit that. But I'll note that your response is not an admission that YOU might also be wrong. That's what's so frustrating to me: you are so black-and-white SURE that you're right all the time, despite a STUNNING lack of evidence to back that up. It's constantly polling (which can be altered depending on wording to fit almost any narrative, and does not translate into electoral success, which is what ACTUALLY matters when shaping policy), and "the system is rigged against us".

You are literally obsessed with insisting the political system is perfectly fair and equitable. Polls are totally worthless but also the political system is consistent and fair. How do you know? Based on what? We have financial evidence the Democratic party in Nevada moved millions of dollars out of state when they lost, and your response was basically "well ok that's not great but that doesn't mean the system is imbalanced!" WHAT? What is it then?

Inviso posted...

From my perspective, whenever the Democrats try to push for "extremist" progressive policy, the voters immediately riot and f*** them over. The Civil Rights Act, objectively a good thing, led to (admittedly, in combination with the Vietnam War backlash) the Southern strategy, and suddenly the Republican Party wins 5 of the next 6 elections (two of which are among the biggest electoral blowouts in American history) and has been twisted into a monstrosity of identity politics that succeeds because of a broken political system, and the fact that their opposition is cobbled together from two ideologies that refuse to compromise with one another.

The ACA burned ALL the political capital earned by Barack Obama's historic victory, and within two years, a massive House majority was completely erased and reversed into a massive House minority. It took only six years from having a near filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to LOSING THE SENATE and having to spend the NEXT six years scraping together a 50/50 split that includes Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema among their number.

Ok hold on a second here. For one thing, the Civil Rights Act was bipartisan as fuck by modern standards, so it's ABSURD to blame it and PROGRESSIVISM for Johnson's loss.

Secondly, it's almost just as absurd to insist with 100% certainty that the Dems lost seats because of "Progressiveness/the ACA" when Obama largely ran the country as a Neoliberal and moved away from his 2008 message of Progressiveness! Yes, the Republican party insisted he was a "Nazi Socialist Muslim", but that's because that's what they do, literally why are you blaming the LEFT and not the actual culprits, the motherfucking Republicans??

Inviso posted...

And how it does not help progressives when vocal supporters constantly criticize the party that KINDA supports them as opposed to the party that actively hates them and wants to reverse the few progressive gains they already have? How maybe constantly saying "I won't vote for you if you don't give me what I want" comes across as a toothless threat when you go out of your way to nitpick and finds reasons to complain or not vote regardless?

*holds up mirror*

My guy, everyone in this topic sees you assign all your blame towards the Left for Democratic losses instead of the Right. You seem insistent on not understanding the point, even though a half dozen people have explained it to you a dozen times. When you agree with one group 0% and another group 50%, which group is your time better spent trying to improve?

I'd say your focus makes sense if I believed your motivations were good, or you provided actual ideas other than "shhhhh", but I honestly don't. You just want us to shut the fuck up, you don't actually care about us succeeding, and Nevada is proof of that. If you genuinely wanted the Left to succeed, you would see Nevada and try to learn what works, but instead you handwaved it away and insist MAINE, a state with less than half their population, is somehow wildly more important.

Inviso posted...

On path two, the party tries to push a more progressive platform to appeal to the progressive wing, under the assumption that the moderate majority is locked down in their favor. What ends up happening is that progressives will find some way to nitpick the platform to death, for a net positive of zero (much like how Republicans will call EVERYTHING socialism, the progressives seem insistent that unless the entire party bows to their whims entirely, the platform isn't progressive enough and both parties are the same). So the end result is that the progressives are still dissatisfied, and by neglecting the moderate base, a non-negligible portion of the moderate voters suddenly feel disenfranchised and feel like both parties are getting too extreme and no longer care about them, so why bother voting (or, even worse, why not vote for the Republicans?)

Nitpick? Is it nitpicking to want the party that literally said "We'll give you $15 an hour minimum wage" to give us a goddamn minimum wage increase? Yes, when we're promised something and it's not delivered, we are disasstified, you are correct. "Why won't you just shut the fuck up and be satisfied with not getting what you asked for?"

You're not making any sense.

---

Phantom Dust.
"I'll just wait for time to prove me right again." - Vlado