Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 368: Stimulating the American People

(+) Yeah! (+)

You and Corrik seem more like Neocons to me.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

You two are conservatives. I don't really care what you think.

ok, we both voted Biden though so, if you expel us from your party you lose the election. Not a smart move

---

masterplum posted...

ok, we both voted Biden though so, if you expel us from your party you lose the election. Not a smart move

I mean you're just going to go running back to the Republicans anyway. So not sure why it matters if we 'expel' you or not.

---

masterplum posted...

ok, we both voted Biden though so, if you expel us from your party you lose the election. Not a smart move

How many Republicans would you vote for over Joe Biden?

Because I can tell you personally my answer is 0.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

How many Republicans would you vote for over Joe Biden?

Because I can tell you personally my answer is 0.

Me voting libertarian as a show vote over the democrat which is exactly what I did in 2016 still nets you -1 vote.

Based on polling Ive seen, Id estimate around 5-10% of the current Democratic Party is former disgruntled conservatives. You cant lose that slice of the pie and still win. The margins were too close

---

I don't know why you want a pat on the back for not voting for a racist moron who inspired an insurrection against the country, but I'm here to tell you that I'm so pwoud of you, good job you lil angel

---

masterplum posted...

Based on polling Ive seen, Id estimate around 5-10% of the current Democratic Party is former disgruntled conservatives. You cant lose that slice of the pie and still win. The margins were too close

So what you're saying is, as soon as the Republicans go back to nominating big business oligarchs instead of race-baiting pseudopopulists the Democrats will never win anything again.

---

Plum and Corrik are both hardcore conservatives and just making a show of it.

Corrik in particular literally only voted against Trump because he started being personally affected. As history shows he is open and proud of his stance that nothing that doesn't effect him directly matters to him in the slightest and he enthusiastically does not care about other people, and all it took to lose his vote was him not getting his check.

So no, keeping their vote doesn't matter, because we don't actually have their vote. They're just pretending.

---

imagine being too conservative for the democratic party

blows my mind

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Corrik in particular literally only voted against Trump because he started being personally affected. As history shows he is open and proud of his stance that nothing that doesn't effect him directly matters to him in the slightest and he enthusiastically does not care about other people, and all it took to lose his vote was him not getting his check.

can we convince the democrats to keep sending checks solely to buy corrik's vote indefinitely?

---

The Republicans have won the popular vote once in the past 30 years, and that was during a then-new and not yet unpopular war. Furthermore, since 2008 their share of the vote has remained almost entirely unmoved (a range of only 1.5% compared to 4.7% for the Democrats). All this is to say that the people who vote Republican now are more or less the exact same ones who were voting Republican then.

This is why the fascists were able to get their guy as President, because the Republican voterbase is by and large extremely loyal. They would vote for anyone with an R next to their name. The so-called disgruntled conservatives barely exist at all.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Plum and Corrik are both hardcore conservatives and just making a show of it.

Corrik in particular literally only voted against Trump because he started being personally affected. As history shows he is open and proud of his stance that nothing that doesn't effect him directly matters to him in the slightest and he enthusiastically does not care about other people, and all it took to lose his vote was him not getting his check.

So no, keeping their vote doesn't matter, because we don't actually have their vote. They're just pretending.

What check in particular did I lose?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

can we convince the democrats to keep sending checks solely to buy corrik's vote indefinitely?

Did you guys just make up some imaginary scenario where I got a check to vote D? Where you guys even get this shit lol

---

Allow me to resolve this situation before it begins:

Hey Corrik, why did you vote for the Democrats?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Can you definitively say youre right?

Less than a million people voted in Maine this year, youre conveniently painting the entire country the same as essentially the most moderate state in the country, that gives us Susan Collins and Angus King? What other state is like this? Come ON, dude.

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".

From my perspective, whenever the Democrats try to push for "extremist" progressive policy, the voters immediately riot and fuck 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.

Can you at least understand why the Democratic Party MIGHT be gun shy about embracing broad progressive policy? 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?

I just don't understand how you clearly GET that the Democrats are doing something wrong, strategically. They're constantly fighting just to survive, rather than thrive. And you're more than happy to insist that the Democrats need to change their messaging if they want to win, but for some reason, when progressives lose and lose and lose and lose, it's never "What can we do better? How can we change our strategy to succeed? How can we appeal to a broader base so we get more votes and win elections?"

All of this leads to a constant feedback loop and a downward spiral that fucks the Democratic Party over and makes Republicans more powerful. The moderate majority of the Democratic Party wants moderate policy that is still a vast improvement to the extremist policies of the GOP. That is the baseline truth of the party. From here, there are two paths that are taken. On the first path, the party sticks with their moderate base, appeals to them since they are reliable voters, and the progressive minority of the party gets upset and feels neglected. They feel disenfranchised and don't bother voting, which reinforces the view of the party that they can't be relied upon, thus pushing them further into doubling down on the moderates. Now, in the past, you Tony have made the argument that is the Democrats want your votes, then they need to appeal to you. Fine. This leads us to path two.

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?)

I don't even know what to say anymore. We've had this argument so many times and it's clear neither of us are ever going to change the other's minds, and I've spent far too much time on this post and almost don't even want to post it, but again, I've typed a bunch and don't want to just toss it.

---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Allow me to resolve this situation before it begins:

Hey Corrik, why did you vote for the Democrats?

Because I blame Trump for my job being lost and for the hypocritical nature of how my job was taken.

It started with my largely panned Mnuchin first stimulus deal in which he gave a 600 Federal boost on unemployment. (This was supposed to cap at your wages up to 600, not extend past your normal wages).

In turn, the auto industry shut down for Covid and the union refused to go back to work because of this unemployment boost. They tried twice to restart multiple months in which the union refused (again this wouldn't have happened without this boost making them more money than actually working). It wasn't until the companies said they would have to consider this a strike if it continued and look elsewhere for employment that they finally went back. The damage was done at this point. As a down supplier for the auto industry mainly, the writing was on the wall at this point.

We stockpiled coke on the ground due to the auto industry and with it's shelf life, we had to cut production and then eventually hot idle and lay off due to the fact we were overstocked. So, they lay us all off because of what eventually boiled down to the $600 federal boost being poorly designed. Will that actually be there for the down supply people that got fucked over by the flawed bill? No. Now we will double fuck them and be hypocritical at this point.

Causing a stalemate between Trump and Pelosi, in which they are both at fault for at least SOMETHING at all being passed for the people who got fucked over by the first bill.

What check?

Ushi is right, I got personally fucked over. Basically all downstream layoffs got fucked over. But, I don't know what check I am pissed off about. My Trump animosity started all the way back with the first stimulus deal's broken boost that mnuchin agreed to. It wasn't until later that Graham figured out it was broken that they tried to fix it, but it was too late at this point. It should have never gotten to this point. I can't even blame the auto industry. They got paid more money not to work. That's not their fault. That's the fault of the people who let that happen.

And, I didn't vote for Democrats. I voted for 1(one) democrat who was so moderate and likely to rule from the center on behalf of both sides. He is fine for the most part besides his stupid race/gender pandering shit. Keystone pipeline was dumb too.

---

Yeah i'm gonna go ahead and say go fuck yourself Plum and Corrik no hand-jobs for voting against Trump sorry.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

Yeah i'm gonna go ahead and say go fuck yourself Plum and Corrik no hand-jobs for voting against Trump sorry.

You hate me because of my beliefs.

You are no better than the anti maskers.

---

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.

---

I didn't have much problem with Trump policy. In fact, it was pretty on point with my beliefs, for the most part. My ultimate decision to not vote for trump was based on self-inflicted blunders, political demeanor (reality show nonsensical stuff), and rifts caused with our allies.

---

Thanks Corrik. Its important to have these beliefs talked about in this topic because its a pretty big proportion of the US and people whose votes actually matter in particular.

On the other hand:

masterplum posted...

You hate me because of my beliefs.

You are no better than the anti maskers.

WHOA

This is a TAKE!

---

masterplum posted...

You hate me because of my beliefs.

You are no better than the anti maskers.

lmao what in the world is this

---

masterplum posted...

You hate me because of my beliefs.

You are no better than the anti maskers.

To be fair, most of your beliefs are basically "i don't think we should help people," so they're beliefs you should probably expect to be disliked for

---

anti maskers have literally caused other people to get sick and die due to their belief that they shouldn't have to take even the most basic of safety precautious during a pandemic.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Ushi is right, I got personally fucked over. Basically all downstream layoffs got fucked over. But, I don't know what check I am pissed off about. My Trump animosity started all the way back with the first stimulus deal's broken boost that mnuchin agreed to. It wasn't until later that Graham figured out it was broken that they tried to fix it, but it was too late at this point. It should have never gotten to this point. I can't even blame the auto industry. They got paid more money not to work. That's not their fault. That's the fault of the people who let that happen.

So if I'm following your logic, you voted for Democrata because the first stimulus gave too MUCH money to your workplace which caused a snowball effect that made you lose your job? And you were upset that Trump couldn't get a second stimulus done only because they screwed up the first one so badly?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

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?"

See, I could at least understand getting mad at progressives if the moderates were at least offering something as a compromise, but right now it looks more like they're just going to do nothing. And it's not just about the minimum wage, that's how they're treating every issue. Yes, there are progressive ideas that would lose elections for the Democrats if they tried to pass them, but that doesn't mean the moderates can't work with them on any issues. I don't think the Democrats will do well in upcoming election if their only achievement is "Literally just not Donald Trump".
---

masterplum posted...

You hate me because of my beliefs.

You are no better than the anti maskers.

Wowza

---

Inviso posted...

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.

Also fwiw even Democratic leadership is starting to openly admit their mistake during the Obama years was moderating too hard. Manchin and Biden might be in denial but the Senate Majority Leader knows what's up. Just gonna repost this since maybe you missed it.

https://twitter.com/DavidKlion/status/1368956784627642370?s=19

Even Obama's book is filled with all this "ohhhhhh if only we had passed a better bill but there was nothing I could do ohhh nooooo" stuff because he knows he fucked up but still wants the good PR lol

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

anti maskers have literally caused other people to get sick and die due to their belief that they shouldn't have to take even the most basic of safety precautious during a pandemic.

there's also a lot of incredibly hateful "beliefs" that are very well worth hating people for so I don't get that hatred-because-of-beliefs bit

---

The political system is NOT fair and equitable, Tony. The Democratic Party has to work twice as hard and be twice as good as the GOP just to achieve equality with the GOP. However, that is from the inherent make-up of the political system. The Senate and the Electoral college are designed to benefit smaller states (who are more likely to vote Republican) by giving them a disproportionate amount of power. And in the House, seats can be assigned by partisan gerrymandering, which again, has a benefit to the GOP.

But clearly that's not what you're referring to. You're referring to internal politics, where a longstanding history of power begets further power (much like how wealth inequality arises as wealth begets wealth). And yeah, it's difficult for an outsider to gain traction when the establishment has in-roads, but that's just why you need to work harder. Unless there is a unilateral disarmament (by which I mean every person in both parties is expelled and both the Democrats and GOP are forced to start from the ground up, which still wouldn't work because there's no way to completely remove outside influence in campaigning), you have to work within the system as it is, not the system as you wish it was.

And it's DOABLE. That's the thing. It's DOABLE to win as an outsider. AOC beat the 4th-in-line ranking Democrat in a primary to take his seat. Barack Obama, a one-term Senator, beat political juggernaut Hillary Clinton. But it just comes across as whenever progressives lose, it's not your fault and the system is broken, and there's nothing you can do to change things. Bernie loses in 2016 to a candidate that Barack Obama was able to overcome, and your takeaway from that was "we'll run the same candidate and the same style of campaign, and THIS time we'll win." And then he loses and the reaction is the same thing. It comes across as arrogant. When I argue with you, that is the attitude you give off. "My ideas are right and therefore the people will reward me for my intelligence if I just keep doing the same thing over and over again to the same, failing result." Just TRY to fucking win for fuck's sake. I WANT you to fucking win and you fucking REFUSE to do so unless it's on your EXACT terms.

And as for why I get angrier at progressives than at Republicans, it's simple. Republicans are fucking morons who support disastrous policies that fuck themselves over in order to fuck "others" over more. But when they vote for their politicians, they get what they THINK they want. The Dems get fucked over and the GOP win. Meanwhile, while progressives sabotage the Democratic Party, you guys don't get ANYTHING you want. And you KNOW this. It's not like the GOP, where they're been convinced that stabbing themselves in the gut is beneficial, so they'll grip the knife themselves. No, you KNOW the GOP fucks you over a helluvalot harder than the Democrats do, if only because they want to actively reverse progress, as opposed to doing nothing. Yet you still regularly come across as though you would rather fuck over the Democrats and accept Republican rule as part of some misguided belief that accelarationism will fix everything. News Flash: the moderates think the same thing about acceleration with progressives, and moderates are hurt a LOT less than progressives under Republican rule.

And when I say nitpicking, let's look at the $15 minimum wage. Massive improvement from $7.25. But then comes the nitpicking. "Why is it incremental, it should be $15 immediately?" Never mind that asking companies to INSTANTLY double their payroll is just asking for workers to get fucked over harder than a gradual increase to a new maximum. "Why is it $15? That was barely good enough back in 2016, but NOW the minimum wage should be $24." Yes, because the $15 that we can't get passed through budget reconciliation would certainly be more palatable if we upped it by 9 dollars. These are the things that, if the minimum wage increase DID pass, progressives would STILL complain about as being not good enough, and the end result is exactly the scenario I described: trying desperately to appease a group that's never satisfied, and alienating your base.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

So if I'm following your logic, you voted for Democrata because the first stimulus gave too MUCH money to your workplace which caused a snowball effect that made you lose your job? And you were upset that Trump couldn't get a second stimulus done only because they screwed up the first one so badly?

It didn't give anything to my workplace. It gave it to workers upstream who refused to go back to work because of it.

It was broken. If it wasn't broken, I wouldn't have even lost my job. If you are going to break something to make people lose their job, then you should have something for them of ANY sort because they lost their jobs because of a broken federal bill. There was nothing.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Even Obama's book is filled with all this "ohhhhhh if only we had passed a better bill but there was nothing I could do ohhh nooooo" stuff because he knows he f***ed up but still wants the good PR lol

What do you think was Obama's issue with getting stronger bills passed?


---

Inviso posted...

The political system is NOT fair and equitable, Tony. The Democratic Party has to work twice as hard and be twice as good as the GOP just to achieve equality with the GOP. However, that is from the inherent make-up of the political system. The Senate and the Electoral college are designed to benefit smaller states (who are more likely to vote Republican) by giving them a disproportionate amount of power. And in the House, seats can be assigned by partisan gerrymandering, which again, has a benefit to the GOP.

But clearly that's not what you're referring to.

No actually Ive referred to that like a million times, every time you say actually everyone is mostly conservative.

The Left doesnt just have to overcome THAT, but they also have to overcome Democrats who see any complaints as whining and also youd rather a Republican win than a Democrat, so well make sure you lose to own you.

Inviso posted...

And when I say nitpicking, let's look at the $15 minimum wage. Massive improvement from $7.25. But then comes the nitpicking. "Why is it incremental, it should be $15 immediately?" Never mind that asking companies to INSTANTLY double their payroll is just asking for workers to get f***ed over harder than a gradual increase to a new maximum. "Why is it $15? That was barely good enough back in 2016, but NOW the minimum wage should be $24."

Literally who is saying this? I have not seen a single person say the minimum wage should be maxed out overnight. I HAVE seen people say it should be higher than 15, but thats you just being self-defeating! If we ask for $15 and it takes 10 years to NOT even get that passed, you are being intentionally obtuse to call people whiny or nitpicky for saying well now that time has passed, it should be higher tbh but lets start at 15.

Your entire position is and has always been yeah youre not getting literally anything you want, but shut the fuck up and accept it because at least its not worse, and I am once again asking you to understand that that is stupid (and irrational).

---

Also, I'd like to point out that I WANT the fucking filibuster to be gone. I think it's an antiquated political device that isn't properly used and has been taken by the GOP as a means of blocking any and all policy (since they are a party that benefits entirely on NOTHING getting done.) That was a big reason why I solidified my support behind Elizabeth Warren during the primaries, because she was the only major candidate saying "Yeah, get rid of the fucking filibuster", while even fellow progressive Bernie was saying "We're going to inspire so many voters to turn out that we won't NEED to give up the filibuster".

But at the end of the day, the voters didn't vote for Elizabeth Warren. They wanted Bernie as far as progressives go, and then they wanted Biden as far as the actual candidate goes. The Democratic VOTERS (not the party establishment, but the stupid-ass VOTERS) send a message, as fucking STUPID as it is, that they want the filibuster in place because they want unity and bipartisanship. And when the VOTERS don't turn out en masse to give the Democrats an overwhelming mandate, that's what you get. You get a government where the Democrats barely win over a party that seeks to actively handicap our country whenever they're in power, and are thus forced to obey the whims of a Joe Manchin.

If you want Democratic politicians to govern as ruthlessly as GOP politicians, then Democratic VOTERS need to vote for them in such numbers they can get away with pulling the shit the GOP pulls (successfully, I might add). But that won't happen because the Democrats largely succeed on being the "reasonable" party to the GOP's malicious evil.

---

Ill say this for Obama - even he, who I would describe as a neoliberal conservative, recognised that austerity was not going to solve the issue and invested to get out of the recession, at least at the federal level. And the US at least recovered. Europe meanwhile mired itself in austerity and recovered much more slowly. In particular the UK still hasnt recovered from the recession, and thats led to a cycle of persistently screwing itself over and making the economy even worse through things like brexit, as a result of austerity.

This is actually an instance of the US being more left than its contemporaries, and relatively speaking it actually worked pretty damn well.

---

Let me ask you, Tony: Do you think that progressives do ANYTHING wrong in their campaigning? Are there ANY strategic changes progressives could (or should) make to win elections? Because genuinely, whenever we have these arguments, it always comes across as though your response to those two questions is "No, because it's the system that's the problem, not us." Maybe you're just not getting a point across that I'm missing.

You asked me earlier in this topic about how I would say progressives should reframe the "Defund the Police" debate, and I gave a response. But my response largely can be applied across the board. Progressives already support progressive policies. You guys are fucking brilliant and see things that the unwashed masses can't see and thus you need to be in power to save them from themselves. So why does it seem like progressive campaigns are largely tailored to appealing to people who already agree with them? In my opinion, progressives should be finding a way to tailor their message to the moderate majority, either by convincing them that "hey, maybe these policies would be better than our centrism" or convincing them that "hey, these policies AREN'T an extremist, existential threat to our current lifestyle." Once you get in power, do whatever you want. Push hard left policies. Lord knows we deserve it since the GOP does that shit with the far right. But you need to win elections first.

---

neonreaper posted...

What do you think was Obama's issue with getting stronger bills passed?

Trying to get Republicans on board for a bill they wouldn't vote for, having to deal with the 60 vote requirement because there was no appetite for getting around thr filibuster, and capitulation to the moderates instead of exerting more pressure

---

Inviso posted...

." Once you get in power, do whatever you want. Push hard left policies. Lord knows we deserve it since the GOP does that shit with the far right. But you need to win elections first.

Bruh this is literally what progressives are arguing to do right now, after Democrats won an election and got into power. The theory is, passing policies that help people while in power will help win elections in the future. YOU are the one saying we can't do that because there's no way of knowing whether voters actually want those policies and therefore we should wait and win more elections with progressives first.

---

Inviso, Ill be honest. This is actually something that Democrats should learn from Republicans. The US political culture is inherently and intentionally split down the middle and all nationwide contests will hover around 50/50. There is no reason then to fear moving left as the vast majority of voters will always vote the same way. So go wild. The Republicans became a straight up far right party and they got nearly the exact same share of the vote as they did before. The Democrats can therefore go as progressive as they want and frankly, I expect no significant difference in electoral results. It might even push the Republicans towards the centre in response.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Bruh this is literally what progressives are arguing to do right now, after Democrats won an election and got into power. The theory is, passing policies that help people while in power will help win elections in the future. YOU are the one saying we can't do that because there's no way of knowing whether voters actually want those policies and therefore we should wait and win more elections with progressives first.

I agree that we SHOULD be jamming through as much progressive policy as possible. Get rid of the filibuster and worry about the consequences later. But the party isn't doing that, in large part because they don't feel like they have a mandate, and in large part because that would be betraying the platform that the majority of their voters voted for. So I UNDERSTAND it, even if I think it is extremely damaging to the party's chances in 2022 and 2024.

However, the mindset of "the Dems are trash, I'm gonna shit all over them and not vote for them" does nothing to help matters. That attitude isn't magically going to make the Dems re-evaluate their political strategy. They're going to see progressives' mass exodus as confirmation of their initial beliefs that the progressive wing can't be relied upon to vote for them, and therefore they need to focus their attention on either appealing super hard to their moderate base and independents, or attempting to depress turnout of the Republicans by offering up a candidate that won't frighten them into voting en masse for four more years of Republican rule.

---

Inviso posted...

However, the mindset of "the Dems are trash, I'm gonna shit all over them and not vote for them" does nothing to help matters. That attitude isn't magically going to make the Dems re-evaluate their political strategy.

Oh wait I thought it was progressives that needed to re-evaluate their political strategy. I didn't consider that Dems, the people actually paid to come up with and execute political strategies, might want to change their strategies instead. I didn't even think to hold them to a higher standard.

Thanks.

---

Lightning Strikes posted...

Inviso, Ill be honest. This is actually something that Democrats should learn from Republicans. The US political culture is inherently and intentionally split down the middle and all nationwide contests will hover around 50/50. There is no reason then to fear moving left as the vast majority of voters will always vote the same way. So go wild. The Republicans became a straight up far right party and they got nearly the exact same share of the vote as they did before. The Democrats can therefore go as progressive as they want and frankly, I expect no significant difference in electoral results. It might even push the Republicans towards the centre in response.

I disagree. The major difference between the two parties, outside of policy, is that the GOP voters are fanatical and will turn out for ANYTHING. You hear it discussed regularly during midterms or during special elections, how the GOP has an inherent advantage because their side is motivated regardless. The Dems don't have that, because as this topic series shows, the Democratic Party is a mash-up of conservative Democrats who think the modern GOP is too extreme, moderate Democrats who just want compromise and pushing for something everyone can be equally happy/unhappy about, and progressive Democrats who are "extreme" in their beliefs in the context of American politics. These groups are inherently at odds with one another, and the end result is a voter base that isn't as devout and guaranteed to turn out in their favor as the GOP's.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Oh wait I thought it was progressives that needed to re-evaluate their political strategy. I didn't consider that Dems, the people actually paid to come up with and execute political strategies, might want to change their strategies instead. I didn't even think to hold them to a higher standard.

Thanks.

So you agree that it's silly to expect the Democratic Party to abruptly alter their political strategy (which works about 40% of the time), while progressives should never change anything about their political strategy (which works about 10% of the time)?

---

Inviso posted...

So you agree that it's silly to expect the Democratic Party to abruptly alter their political strategy (which works about 40% of the time), while progressives should never change anything about their political strategy (which works about 10% of the time)?

Lmao

---

Inviso posted...

However, the mindset of "the Dems are trash, I'm gonna shit all over them and not vote for them" does nothing to help matters. That attitude isn't magically going to make the Dems re-evaluate their political strategy. They're going to see progressives' mass exodus as confirmation of their initial beliefs that the progressive wing can't be relied upon to vote for them, and therefore they need to focus their attention on either appealing super hard to their moderate base and independents, or attempting to depress turnout of the Republicans by offering up a candidate that won't frighten them into voting en masse for four more years of Republican rule.

Again, you are removing agency from Democratic politicians and acting like they are powerless. They have to not lose ANY of their base and that's why the onus should be on them to appeal to progressives every so often. And we are talking really basic shit here like the relief checks and minimum wage increases they literally ran on. Guess what? Not fulfilling campaign promises you made is going to lose them points with EVERYONE. Politicians should rightfully be afraid of that! You're taking issue with progressives being most upset because it just so happens the promises they have the most trouble with are the progressive ones. That's not a coincidence, but it's more indicative of concrete political priorities in Washington DC more than what the nebulous and fickle voters want.

---

Inviso posted...

So you agree that it's silly to expect the Democratic Party to abruptly alter their political strategy (which works about 40% of the time), while progressives should never change anything about their political strategy (which works about 10% of the time)?

dude what are you TALKING about? Your order of operations is completely fucked up.

So let me get this straight, if were mad the Democrats promise us progressive stuff we like and then dont do it, the solution is to SIMULTANEOUSLY vote for those same Democrats and also magically create viable progressive candidates who would compete against those same Democrats we have to vote for?


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

dude what are you TALKING about? Your order of operations is completely fucked up.

So let me get this straight, if were mad the Democrats promise us progressive stuff we like and then dont do it, the solution is to SIMULTANEOUSLY vote for those same Democrats and also magically create viable progressive candidates who would compete against those same Democrats we have to vote for?

Thank you so much for ignoring my previous post directed specifically at you about what progressives can do to win elections. This post was so much more imperative for you to easily respond to, since it allows the conversation to direct onus on the Democratic Party, rather than any sort of introspective self-reflection, as usual.

And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The Democrats promise progressive stuff to get you onboard and then don't follow through. The Republicans, meanwhile, demonize that exact same progressive stuff as a means to drive their voters out against the Democrats. Given those two options, yes, you need to continuously vote for the Democrats because at least they'll pay lip service that MIGHT eventually translate into getting what you want EVENTUALLY.

It would certainly HELP your cause if, rather than constantly running the same playbook for progressive candidates that lose to moderates in primaries (or lose to Republicans on the rare occasion when progressive candidates win the primaries), there was some re-evaluation of progressive strategy to more consistently win primaries and win elections. That sort of thing would lead to more progressive voices in congress and the Senate, bolstering the idea that the American people actually WANT progressive policies and making it easier for Democrats in congress to fulfill progressive campaign promises without fear of immediate backlash from the voters. Bonus points if enough seats are gained that the Democrats can afford to make some bold moves without immediately losing any power two years later when the GOP inevitably make gains.

---

The solution is apparently to elect some sleeper agent progressives who up until election just say "bleep bloop, I am a moderate and I hate Medicare for all." And then they get elected and hear the trigger word and we're golden.

Thanks Inviso

---

VintageGin posted...

The solution is apparently to elect some sleeper agent progressives who up until election just say "bleep bloop, I am a moderate and I hate Medicare for all." And then they get elected and hear the trigger word and we're golden.

Thanks Inviso

I mean, yes. If he could do ANYTHING to appeal to minority voters, I think Mayor Pete wouldve fit this description exactly.

---

Also we progressives will know the candidate is progressive the whole time! Somehow. There's absolutely no chance it will turn out to be someone pretending to care about progressive policy.

---