• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    37
    ·
    1 month ago

    Having standards is a bad thing, just vote for your team even if you’d hate what they do.

    Republicans did that decades ago, and now have trump.

    The only thing stupider than them doing it, is all the “moderates” saying it’s easier to convince millions of people to follow them off the cliff than convince the DNC to start running candidates that Dem voters want to vote for…

    The fact that trump has won 50% of his elections and looks to be 2/3 in a few months should make everyone reconsider the quality of candidates we’re running against him.

    Not getting mad at the people honest about the situation while there’s still time to do literally anything to prevent trump.

    • Skua@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      The fact that trump has won 50% of his elections and looks to be 2/3 in a few months should make everyone reconsider the quality of candidates we’re running against him.

      After the Dems last lost an election, you got Biden as your next candidate. Why are you expecting this approach to suddenly produce a candidate you would like?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I don’t, that’s my point.

        “Blue no matter who” always ends up with candidates more conservative than we want.

        So even like in 2020 where we all and together and get a Dem president, House, and Senate, nothing gets done.

        Because too many Dem incumbents just don’t agree with the party platform.

        The only time the party pushes is when progressives try to have standards.

        The only result is the party keeps getting more and more conservative. It’s not a valid long term strategy

        • Skua@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          42
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          I think you’ve misunderstood me. Last time the Democrats lost an election, you got Joe Biden as the next candidate. Why would making the Dems lose this election produce a more progressive candidate?

            • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Sure there is, but too many progressive voters just seem to be unwilling to act to get them. It takes long term planning.

              Let’s look at Barack Obama, a man whose political career to President was considered to be extremely fast, and who was considered to be very inexperienced and a shockingly fast rise.

              He was elected President of the Harvard Law Review in 1990, 18 years before he would become President of the USA. In 1992 he directed a voter registration project/drive in Chicago that was successful enough to be big news. In 1996 he was elected to the Illinois State Senate, and in 2000 he lost the primary for a US Representative position.

              But here’s a very important part: in 2003 he became chairman of a state committee when Democrats regained a majority. This allowed him to have some legislative successes, specifically in the field of racial profiling. Hmm, that ain’t gonna be important in Illinois ever again, is it?

              With that legislative success, he was able to win the primary for Senate, but even then, this essentially required the incumbent in that slot to be gone. Then he was a Senator for merely four years before becoming President. And also notably for those who act like the DNC simply anoints candidates, he beat Hillary in the primary, despite her being favored by most of the entrenched elite of the party.

              And the important thing to remember is this was a startlingly fast political career, considered by everyone to be a meteoric rise, an outlier. He was in politics for only 12 years before becoming President, though he did politics adjacent things even earlier. A more expected career would probably go for 20 to 30 years before becoming President.

              So you want voter action for more progressive candidates? It starts a quarter century ago, in state-level offices like the Illinois Senate. It starts by getting those candidates elected over goddamn decades.

              Politics is like farming, you can’t show up in harvest season, look around, and go ‘where are all the crops?’ and then be pissy that there’s gonna be a famine this winter. You gotta show up in the planting season, plant those crops, take care of them, keep them healthy and watered and fertilized as they grow, so you can finally get your food when harvest time comes.

              So you want to complain about the lack of candidates, well here’s my question: where the fuck were you all in planting season a quarter of a century ago? Cause these crops take a goddamn while to grow.

              • beardown@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                Obama is a neoliberal. I don’t want more elected politicians with his views

                If I did want Obama 2.0 then I’d vote for Buttigieg. And I hate Buttigieg

                • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Way to miss the point.

                  The point is his career took twelve years and it was considered a meteoric rise, incredibly fast. You want better candidates, start working for it and help them make their way through the system.

                  Who’s your representative in your state house? Who was their primary opponent? Did you vote in that primary to try and get a more progressive candidate? Have you worked to get your local community to support more progressive candidates in small offices, so they can eventually become high level candidates?

                  There’s a chance you can answer those questions and have done what you can, but the vast, vast majority of progressives seem to just complain that no perfect candidate has been delivered to them despite no effort on their part.

                  • beardown@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    Did you vote in that primary to try and get a more progressive candidate? Have you worked to get your local community to support more progressive candidates in small offices, so they can eventually become high level candidates?

                    Yes, actually

                    The point is his career took twelve years and it was considered a meteoric rise, incredibly fast.

                    Right, because he was willing to be a corporate shill who happened to be generationally charismatic. Which is what Buttigieg tried (and failed) to replicate. And is what Bill Clinton successfully did in 1992 - though he had a longer career prior to that than either 08 Obama or 2020 Buttigieg

                    The system and ruling class are highly opposed to socialists. And are even opposed to social democrats like the Nordic countries or FDR. We live in an oligarchic empire in decline. Which means that fascism is unfortunately very likely in our lifetimes - if not via Trump in 2024, then likely via someone else in 2028 or 2032. The fact that we’ll soon be dealing with increased millions of climate refugees, both internationally and from gulf states like Florida, will only accelerate such devolution.

                    So telling people to vote harder is very insufficient. People are correct to be depressed and furious. Their futures are bleak - but not as bleak as the futures of their grandchildren

            • Skua@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 month ago

              You are not limited to just your vote on the day of presidential elections in terms of your political engagement

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              There seems to be no voter action that can produce a more progressive candidate.

              It’s almost like they don’t want you to have one.

          • audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            1 month ago

            Because, they’re saying, WINNING sure didn’t do progressives any favors.

            FWIW, we ran Hillary Clinton as a moderate candidate and lost.

            • Skua@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              31
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 month ago

              If neither winning nor losing does progressives any favours, then there’s no issue with trying to make the least bad realistic option win

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                22
                ·
                1 month ago

                Only if you never think more than an election ahead.

                If you don’t, and always blindly vote D just because it’s not R…

                How is that different than what lead the Republican party to trump?

                Why do you think it’ll be different this time?

                • Skua@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  22
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Only if you never think more than an election ahead.

                  So how many elections are you expecting that the Dems must lose in order to start fielding candidates you like, or for another party that does so to take their place? It doesn’t matter how many they lose if it never moves the needle your way, so you’ll have to be quite persuasive that this will achieve something that’s worth capitulating to the American right for a decade or longer.

                  How is that different than what lead the Republican party to trump?

                  Because of the actual outcomes during the four years between each election and the fact that you can protest and write and whatever else you want for improvement during that time. Your vote does have to be your entire political engagement.

                  Does this suck? Yes. Does the Republicans winning do literally anything to fix any of it? No. For that you need the Overton window to shift so far that the Republican party dies and the new two-party system has the Dems on the right, or you need a new electoral system. Neither of these is accomplished by the Dems losing.

                  Why do you think it’ll be different this time?

                  I don’t think it’ll be different this time because the candidates have already been picked. We already both know what the options are. Unfortunately, “no different” is a lot better than the other option. That’s why I’m advocating voting for damage control on the day. Vote against the worst option, because that’s how FPTP works.

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                    cake
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    10
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    So how many elections are you expecting that the Dems must lose in order to start fielding candidates you like,

                    Mate, I’m one person. Not millions.

                    It’s not about my personal morals and how much genocide I’m ok supporting.

                    It’s a lot easier to change Biden’s mind about how he governs in 6 months than change millions of people’s minds about how he governs, right?

                    Unless you think Biden just won’t listen to his constituents even if it means letting trump back into the White House.

                    Do you think he doesn’t give that much of a fuck about America?

                    Why be mad at a social media account, when you’re apparently not mad at Biden? The one individual with the power to easily prevent trump from winning.

                    All he has to do, is listen to his voters.

                    If he can’t do that now, why does he deserve either of our votes?

            • TacticsConsort@yiffit.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I’m gonna say (as someone that was sucked into the psychological torture machine that was the conservative media loop in 2016) that Hillary didn’t lose for being a moderate. Trump was by far at his strongest in 2016; his insanity was a basically unknown factor and he did a legitimately great job seeming to flip the bird at ‘the system’, and the conservative propaganda machine had a LOT of points to attack Hillary with that had nothing to do with her moderate politics. Trump promised the world and had all the charisma to sell the world too, and Hillary… I honestly can’t remember anything about her platform at all.

              In my personal opinion, Hillary could absolutely have won that election if the Democrats hadn’t been complacent about it. Maybe not a landslide victory, but I think it would have been a very solid win.

              • shikitohno@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                Hillary had a weird double-whammy of underestimating the appeal of Trump for many that led to losing control of the monster she helped make, along with having a long list of insults ready for anyone who didn’t want her to be the Democratic candidate that didn’t endear her to the voters who could have made her presidency for her. Whether it was calling them deplorables, broadly dismissing any criticism of her within the party as rooted in misogyny, or accusing them of being unrealistic idealists with pie in the sky goals and unelectable candidates, she really had a knack for taking these people and firmly putting them in the camp of “Screw her, I’m not voting for someone who treats me like that.” rather than engaging in a serious attempt to understand these voters and address their concerns.

                Democrats today have certainly learned that Trump could be a serious threat, not to be dismissed out of hand. To his credit, Biden has notably not fallen into the sort of self-destructive antagonism of the electorate that is not already firmly committed. He might pay only lip service to their concerns, but I’m not aware of him blanket writing off, say, pro-Palestinian protestors en masse as antisemites that were never going to vote for him and are beyond redeem, even if he does frequently trot out manufactured claims of widespread antisemitism.

                People online trying to drum up support for him don’t seem to have gotten the message that this didn’t work out so well for Hillary, and are going at it, calling people who haven’t vocally committed to Biden anything from idiots to Russian shills to Republican trolls, and claiming they hate minorities and LGBTQ+ people or whatever else occurs to them to rile up people. I don’t see that working out to their advantage, and predict it will alienate people who might have potentially been won over.

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              FWIW, we ran Hillary Clinton as a moderate candidate and lost.

              You call that Kissinger/Thatcher mashup monstrosity “moderate?”

              • audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                She is a moderate in the Democratic Party at this point, unfortunately. Hell, I think Reagan would be a moderate in today’s Democratic Party. All the more reason we should be running more progressive candidates.

            • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 month ago

              Hillary was a moderate?

              In 2016 the pre election polls showed a rock paper scissors ordering.

              • Trump beats Hillary

              • Hillary beats Bernie

              • Bernie beats Trump

              The last occurred because Bernie was a different enough candidate to attract a certain subset of Republicans.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I just assumed you didn’t think a single voter could influence an election…

            For my vote to matter for president, we need a charismatic progressive, it’s the only thing that can flip my state from red.

            Even if Biden pull it out and wins, there is literally zero chance Biden wins my state.

            That’s just reality.

            You don’t flip red states by being diet republican. Everyone that wants that is already voting R, and they’ll never vote D.

        • jumjummy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          So come this November what are you suggesting? I’m so sick of these naive pie-in-the-sky dreaming, or just complain without any solution posts. Come out and say it plainly. Are you saying not to vote for Biden come November?

          You’re literally one of the guys in the meme above.

          • Jentu@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            Why are you so eager to get people to telegraph their vote when the act of threatening to withhold a vote (even if they plan on voting for biden in November) gives infinitely more leverage than pledging fealty months ahead of schedule so the campaign strategists solidify their stances on everything to keep voters around? Come on, if your goal is to vote strategically, telegraph strategically too so you are voting for a better biden than exists today.

            • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Why are you so eager to get people to telegraph their vote

              Because we want to determine if you are a Russian bot or just badly informed.

              • Jentu@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                So, no response to the rest of my comment explaining why someone would claim they won’t be voting for biden? You’d rather call people bots instead of assume people are acting strategically and in good faith to help Palestinians?

            • jumjummy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              I’m not saying to telegraph your vote, but I am tired of these not-so-subtle attempts at either “bOtH SiDeS” arguments or somehow pushing for people to not vote (or throw away their vote on a third party).

              This disinformation push has truly infested Lemmy across the board and I view it as extremely dangerous.

              Realistically it’s too late in the election cycle to impact change on either incumbent nominee. All k see is efforts to disenfranchise people into somehow not voting for Biden.

              • Jentu@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                It’s honestly a pretty safe bet to think that both liberals and leftist’s positions are being amplified and twisted by propagandists. I’m a queer leftist. I know how much damage another trump presidency would be for my community, but at the same time, I know how harmful a current Biden presidency is to Palestinians. My life isn’t more important than theirs, so I refuse to look at this like I’m some outsider looking in since I’m biased towards my own comfort. Since trump isn’t an option and since relying on 3rd parties to be our saviors is unrealistic, more strategic actions must be made (like lying about abstaining your vote for instance). Hell, a ton of leftists aren’t even in states where it would even matter who they vote for, so all they have is their voice to try to change current policy rather than change to a different president (3rd party) with different policy.

                Poisoning online discourse of Biden’s specific policies until his campaign team determines that he needs to change things to win the election is about the only thing likely to move the needle for leftists living in deep red or deep blue states. So far, Biden’s team has shifted to being vocally against Israel’s actions in public but still sending funds and weapons sales regardless of the harsh words. But harsh words aren’t making a difference since Netanyahu had no issues invading Rafah. So more pressure has to be placed on Biden (through electoral leverage) until he acts in such a way that it makes a real difference. There’s still time for Biden to reverse course, to stop threatening the ICC, to stop vetoing UN resolutions, to stop shipping weapons regardless of our trade deals with Israel. That’s the leverage he has and electoral strategy is our leverage. Assuming everyone is acting in bad faith denies discussion about what actually should be done in the meantime while we see what kind of Biden is on the ballot this November.

                And yes, some leftists are so livid over our role in horrors around the world and want to burn things to the ground since more people would be happier in the world without the US policing them, instigating coups, exploiting the global south and prisoners for slave labor in this country, as well as countless other reasons this “democracy” probably isn’t worth saving. And while I also think America (as well as pretty much every global superpower out there) are genuinely evil, tearing down this system right now probably wouldn’t really help out Palestinians in the short term (short term being important because there’s half a million people starving to death who could be helped).

                The real issue here is that AIPAC is known to heavily support candidates against anyone who isn’t staunchly pro-israel (they spent $4.5 Million on Katie Porter’s rival in California and helped get Maxine Dexter seated in Oregon with the help of republican donors). They would likely push anti-biden or pro-trump just to maintain their singular goal. AIPAC is also currently trying to unseat Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) from the House and replace him with someone who is pro-israel. If AIPAC has enough power to control the sway of elections, they definitely have more sway than leftists online ever will. Though, if Biden reverses course (initiating actions from AIPAC) then loses the election, leftists will be blamed while AIPAC will be largely ignored.

              • HuntressHimbo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                There are five more months until the election. That is only not enough time if you are unwilling to even make an attempt to change your candidates position. Thats the crux of this. Moderates keep shouting like the election is happening tomorrow when its months away. You know whats happening tomorrow? More Palestinian deaths while you wring your hands about how its impossible to get Biden to do anything decent. I can’t imagine why leftists are so disappointed in moderates all the time.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Republicans did that decades ago, and now have trump.

      I might argue that Republicans didn’t do that decades ago, and that’s how they got two Bushes, a McCain, and a Romney. It wasn’t until they abandoned the “electable” moderate Republican and embraced their ideological id that they got to their political messiah.

      The fact that trump has won 50% of his elections and looks to be 2/3 in a few months should make everyone reconsider the quality of candidates we’re running against him.

      I gotta say, I noticed the folks running in the GOP field and they all sucked hard. Trump was the raw meat candidate, but he wasn’t even the most fascist asshole on the ballot. DeSantis was the guy who got off waterboarding people at Gitmo for a living. Hailey couldn’t name a country she didn’t want to bomb. Hutchinson’s fundie base would have him rounding up the cast of RuPaul’s Drag Race and marching them to the gas chambers. Only Ramaswamy is the kind of sociopath business conservative more fixated on looting the country than mutilating its residents.

      Trump’s given them license to go full mask-off, but he’s not uniquely bad. He’s emblematic of a party that’s also frothed with bigotry, and just found a PC way of displaying it right up until a black man got into the White House.

      Not getting mad at the people honest about the situation while there’s still time to do literally anything to prevent trump.

      Biden won 2020 by 40,000 votes across three major swing states. He’s losing all three - PA, GA, and AZ - by two to three times that under current polling. The theory that we can just Tinkerbell him back into a second term is simple cope. Biden’s goose was cooked as soon as he fumbled the bag in his first 100 days.

      Blaming 20-something tech savvy voters on Lemmy for hating the man over his genocidal support of Israel won’t shift any of the critical swing-state 40-something blue collar voters angry at him over sun-setting all the COVID era public spending measures.

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s the economy, stupid

        …and for most Americans the economy isn’t that great. Sure we ducked the recession that should have come, but while “line goes up” is great for Wall Street and the economy as a whole, the delayed impact means that improvement does little for the suburban and rural working class voters whose only exposure to the stock market is their 401(k). That’s decades away from paying anything out, while right now they’re feeling the pinch of stagnant wages and corporate driven inflation

    • theonyltruemupf@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      I’m not sure how it works in the US but join the democratic party and vote for the presidential candidate you want to see. If it doesn’t work out and you don’t like the democratic candidate but said candidate is still better than the Republican, still vote Democrat.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’m not sure how it works in the US

        Yeah. If you think primaries matter, you don’t know how it works here…

        But one DNC lawyer’s argument actually tries to justify the party’s right to be biased on behalf of one primary candidate over another, according to an article from The Young Turks. In other words, they could have chosen their nominee over cigars in a backroom.

        https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/dnc-lawyer-reportedly-said-they-could-have-chosen-between-clinton-sanders-over-cigars-in-back-rooms/

        Their legal defense for interfering with the 2016 primary was literally:

        Who cares? A primary isn’t a real election and doesn’t matter, we don’t have to listen to results.

        • theonyltruemupf@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Maybe the primaries system is fucked up, but protest votes in the presidential elections won’t change the system for the better either. Neither party wants to introduce a democratic, proportional voting system because both parties would lose power. I don’t know how to fix it, i just know that getting Trump elected won’t.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Maybe

            Maybe?

            It is fucked.

            We have no say in who either of the two general candidates are, and they take billions from the same people/industries.

            That’s not an exaggeration, 2020 Biden spent a billion, and 2024 they’re predicting two billion.

            We have an illusion of choice and the same people win no matter which party wins the oval office.

            I don’t know how to fix it, i just know that getting Trump elected won’t.

            Neither will voting Biden, it doesn’t solve the problem, just kicks the can down the road and 4 years from now it’ll be the same thing. Either with trump again or someone even worse.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                than slip and fall and fucking die.

                You forgot “risk” and leaving out that in this analogy “kicking the can” is surviving a little.longer by extending suffering.

                But it’s depressing how many people want to spend time convincing people to vote for an unrepent genocide supporter than trying to get the US president and upcoming candidate to stop supporting a genocide…

                This is like when people claimed to support civil rights and MLK. But spent all their time complaining about protests and saying if we all just shut up and accepted it life would be easier for you.

                I’m glad Biden won’t fundamentally change your life, and that your life is currently good enough for that to be acceptable.

                But you’re in the minority these days.

                So keep yelling at people who will suffer under either party to vote for someone that hates them and will actively work against them…

                If you want to prevent republicans from holding higher office tho, I suggest you join the adults and demand the DNC be better than just “not a Republican”.

                You get to prevent trump and help the needy!

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      The fact that trump has won 50% of his elections

      That would mean Biden has won 100% of his elections.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        General presidential?

        Yes…

        That’s what numbers mean.

        If you include primaries tho, his first try at president was 1988, 36 years ago. And he never stopped trying, just never was a good enough candidate till the only standard became “not trump”.