politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If all these leftists that don't vote in protest actually voted, it'd be over. Not just this election, for decades. It would have been a wildly different history.
That too. My buddy is still angry not voting even after 2016. Because he’s still pissed about the two party system. Fair, but you’re not fixing anything.
What a fool. Anyone not voting has no voice and has no right to complain. Nobody will pay attention to them because they offer no action. At that point they may as well be a foreign citizen for the amount of power they hold in the US elections.
Well some foreign powers wield a decent amount of influence on US elections and politics...
He can bemoan the two party system. But if they want to move anything they need to vote. Assuming he wants to move things left, then it's vote for Dems.
Does he at least vote in the Primary? Love it or hate it, that's our version of ranked choice voting. Vote for the preferred candidate (someone who supports actual RCV I assume) and then see if you can stomach the winner of the party.
Not fixing anything indeed.
Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
Refreshing that Lemmy seems to understand first past the post.
Which is why it is very important to understand that tankies are not leftists.
They are agents (willing or stupid) of foreign powers who advocate for fascism. And it is in the interests of their masters (mostly Xinnie the pooh and putin) to encourage leftists to disenfranchise themselves.
No, it wouldn't. It's very difficult to quantify how many people don't vote as a protest vs. don't vote out of apathy, but the Green Party, Libertarian Party, and all other third parties combined took home less than 2% of the total vote in the last Presidential election. Even if we assumed that just as many people were staying home in protest, and that they were entirely made up of disgruntled leftists, that would only maybe affect the outcome of some swing states if the numbers are unevenly distributed. It certainly wouldn't remake history.
The internet (and Lemmy especially) might be full of high-minded leftists claiming they stay home on moral principle, but the majority of people who don't vote are just tired, working class people who have to squeeze voting in around work and family on a random Tuesday. If you want them to turn out, you have to give them a candidate that speaks to them enough that they'll take time out of their day vote. (Well, that or a make mail-in voting universal in all 50 states, or make voting day a federal holiday, or a bunch of other things that will never get through Congress.)
I think president Gore would have been a very different (and better) history. Ditto Hilary.
Well, again, it's pretty hard to quantify how many people are not voting on principle, but again, if we use third-party voters as a guide, that's probably not true. For Hillary, analysis shows that even if every single Jill Stien voter had gone to Clinton, she still would have needed to win over 50% of Gary Johnson's voters (who were obviously unlikely to consider themselves leftists) to win..
Bush and Gore is different, since Bush won by 537 votes in Florida, so sure, if the Nader voters had gone to Gore, he would have won. You could probably also assume that there were 537 disgruntled leftists who decided to stay home as well, but with a margin that small, almost anything could have changed the outcome. If all the voters who stayed home with a cold went out and voted Gore might have won.
You're working from a premise that there's a large contingent of leftists who are withholding their vote on principle, and if they just voted, the Democrats would always win. But there's no data to assume that's true, and it's just as likely that there are as many conservatives doing the exact same thing. So what's point here? If only all the leftists who didn't vote on principle came out, but all the conservatives who didn't vote on principle still stayed home, things would be different? You could blame pretty much any group for your candidates' loss with logic like that.
Ever heard the saying conservatives fall in line? So no I don't think conservatives are doing the exact same thing.
Well, if it's a platitude it must be true.
Singer of my band in 2000,
"well if my green party vote gets a Republican elected, the pendulum swings further right which forces the left to activate,"
surprised Pikachu at GOP stealing election,
status quo shifts right in all levels of the courts for quarter century,
leftists learn Gaza exists,
rinse, repeat
Literally accelerationism.
I don't know what that is
Letting the right win, because they'll make things so bad that the revolution has to happen. Doesn't work. What actually happens is that the right squeezes tighter to maintain control until the country is in ruins.
Yeah, that sounds accurate
As a person from country with multiple-party parliamentary system, I have bad news for you. It is not really guarantee of anything.
most of the far left perpetually online leftists are just part of the horseshoe theory.
Gee, if only there were some way to get them excited to vote. Moving to the right hasn't worked and neither has shouting abuse at them, so I guess nothing will make them happy.
Gee if only they could think about how their vote would move the Overton window.
But you just said, they rely on their feeeeelllliinngggs. Guess they aren't so logical huh.
Ok you're today's explanation.
Let's evaluate the last say 24 years and when the Dems had all 3 of the House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency. They need all 3 to pass pretty much anything.
Obama had it for 2 out of 8 years. Biden had it for 2 out of 4 years. Let's add it: That means Dems had control for 4 out of 24 years. Read that again: Dems had control for 4 years of the last 24 years. For filibuster proof control, Dems had control for 4 MONTHS of the last 24 years.
This is why Dems compromise and why they go after the center voter, because they basically never have control. To get literally anything done they need to compromise. Take your pick, either 4 years of the last 24 fucking years, or the 4 months or the last 24 years. And you wonder why they go to the center to find voters?
If you want things to go to the left, you have to give Dems overwhelming and consistent victories. Because when they lose, like how they've lost for 20 years out of the last 24 years, they go to the center to find voters.
A Mexican standoff will not work because they have an out (the center voter who shows up) and the leftist voter doesn't. So the way the leftist voter gradually gets them to move left is by ensuring that the Dems win consistently and overwhelmingly, so that they don't have to go to the center to find voters.
Ok let's go through this chronologically.
Bill Clinton: After successive losses Bill figured out "it's the economy stupid". And when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you 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! Aka the left never shows up.
Obama: So guess what Obama learned? Don't stick your head out. He ran on vague "hope", hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush's disastrous wars. And he won.
More on Obama: so he enacted ACA. That's great, right? The thanks Obama got for that was to lose the house of representatives for year 3 and 4. Then lost the House of reps again for years 5 and 6. Then he lost both the House of reps and the Senate for years 7 and 8. Thanks voters that can’t be assed to show up after the first election! Aka: the left never shows up.
Hillary Clinton: So what did Hilary learn from the last 6 years of Obama? She learned that the left never shows up. So she ran a mostly center platform, with a nod to left on climate change (that thing all the leftists care about right?). And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters! Aka: the left never shows up.
On to 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 a big left platform? Every time they stick their head 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 first. 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 center to find votes.
With this history, you'd be an absolute fool to cater to the left. Because they never show up.
They don't need to move right. They need to show up and give dems consistent and overwhelming victories first. Show the dems that they can win without having to go further and further to the center. Because every time the dems lose, because the left never shows up, they will go to the center to find voters. Voters which BTW actually do show up!
Center voters are worth double, because it's a vote you get and vote the other party loses. They aren't going to cater to the left (worth half the vote) when history shows time and time again that they never show up.
Kamala's groundswell of support is proof that listening, not demanding, generates enthusiasm. You choose not to pay attention because you don't want the party moving to the left, regardless of what they could gain by doing so.
Is her groundswell of support coming from the left, or from the center? It's from the center, who yes rely on impression and feelings and energy.
I'm talking about this supposed logical leftist voter, who thinks logically, because they are so logical, and they will logically not vote in protest, and you are saying this supposed logical left actually relies on feeeelllinngss, then they are not so fucking logical then are they?
Who said I don't want the party to move left? Nice (fake) jab.
Politics isn't a logical endeavor. All political positions are based on assumptions that are feelings based. Conservatives feel that hierarchy is important, leftest value equality.
Nobody prefers equality over hierarchy because they did the homework.
A person who wanted to make all of their decisions based on logic and reason would be paralyzed and incompetent.
I'm sure you can provide a source for that, since you're not just saying whatever you think justifies moving to the right.
Where did I say that? Everyone likes having their concerns addressed, and being ignored inspires apathy. I'm not sure why the party understands this about the Republicans they keep trying to court but not their own left flank.
I did.
Can you source that "you think justifies moving to the right."? Someone here certainly is making things up and it's you.
So far has she announced something like medicare for all that the leftists can point to as a policy to logically support? No. So far she's relying very heavily on energy, vibes, "won't go back" emotion, freedom, which all appeals to center voters who rely on impressions and emotion. The closest to any specific progressive policy is a general idea to tax billionaires.
"excited to vote" is an emotional feeeelllliiiinnggg. You didn't default to say policy to support, you defaulted to the feeling of emotion of excitement and it's very telling. Enthusiasm is an emotional feeellliinnggg. And you're basically on it again, apathy is an emotional feeellllliiinnngg.
If that's what these supposed logical leftist voters need to feed their feeelllinnngs, then fine. But then it's not this case of them being so logical, and they are logically not voting, because logically that will do something (in reality nothing), because they are the embodiment of logic.
Yeah, you. Not me. You. You're making shit up. All the time just so you have something to attack.
This ain't a source.
Sure is. Turns out, the left is comprised of humans with feelings. I don't know why you keep trying to mock something I haven't said.
I don't know where you got this notion that the left considers themselves a bunch of fucking Vulcans. No one likes being shouted at. No one likes having their concerns ignored and belittled. If you want to address voter apathy, you address the concerns of those whose votes you want. Not demand decades of fruitless fealty with some nebulous hint that one day the party might think about considering their concerns. The party gets this about Republicans, but doesn't get that Republicans already have a party that listens to them and does so with some level of credibility. The left doesn't have that.
Tell me again how I've been arguing all this time that leftists are soooooo logical and have no use for feeeeeeeelllllinnngggs.
If the supposed logical left voter actually relies on feelings to vote, then they shouldn't portray that their non-voting or protest voting is logical, or sensible, or rational, or intelligent in any way. Or effective for that matter.
You really are back to feelings too.
Again, I'm talking: "If all these leftists that don’t vote in protest", and trying to keep it to the broad they. (I do however address you specifically when you keep trying to jab me specifically). I remember you, you're the person that thinks everything is pointed specifically and directly and individually at you the individual person and user. The lesson you should learn this time is that not everything in life is aimed at you specifically.
I was talking about broad groups and trying to keep it to "they", but you seem to take that extremely personally and you respond personally. And then when I discuss it broadly like I was originally, you then demand "tell me how I've been ...". Notice that? You take broad things very personally, then demand how you specifically argued that. It's quite an odd trick to say the least. Especially when you entered my reply to someone else. Again, The lesson you should learn this time is that not everything in life is aimed at you specifically.
Hopefully that will suffice to end our conversation this time.
Supposed by whom?