this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
202 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19099 readers
3235 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] disguy_ovahea 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You’re joking, right? They’re the majority of the active voters on the left. It’s progressives that protest by abstention and vote third-party when they don’t get an ideal candidate. Turnout cost Democrats the election in 2016, then we got Biden, not Sanders in 2020.

Those polls are exactly why the DNC keeps moving candidates toward center. They try to capture the reliably active voters rather than roll the dice on the inconsistent participation of the far left.

I voted for Bernie in the primary, and Hillary in the election. I know many who did the former, but did not do the latter.

[–] Ensign_Crab -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s progressives that protest by abstention and vote third-party when they don’t get an ideal candidate.

In 2008, when centrists didn't get their absolute very first choice, they formed a PAC to get McCain elected. A greater percentage of Sanders supporters came out to vote for Clinton than Clinton supporters came out to vote for Obama.

Turnout cost Democrats the election in 2016,

Running the single worst candidate who ever drew breath did that. Clinton earned her loss.

The DNC moves to the right, not the center.

[–] disguy_ovahea 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Your justification for abstention has no bearing on the repercussions of the action.

Progressives felt rightfully disenfranchised by the DNC’s support of Hillary over Bernie, so many abstained in the November election.

The DNC looked at active voter demographics from 2016, and backed Biden over Bernie in 2020.

Abstention does not make your voice heard. It’s just forgoing your say in our current election and potential next candidate.

[–] Ensign_Crab -5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Your justification for abstention

Stop lying about my position just because you are completely incapable of defending yours.

[–] disguy_ovahea 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You justified the voter abstention in 2016 by stating that Hillary was the worst candidate that ever drew breath. I’m not citing your actions, but your stated opinion.

Twist the narrative any way you want. At the end of the day, it’s a simple numbers game. If Democrats show up, a Democrat is elected. If not, candidates move more towards the active voter demographics, which would be right from their previous candidate.

[–] Ensign_Crab -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You justified the voter abstention in 2016 by stating that Hillary was the worst candidate that ever drew breath.

No, I said it's why she lost.

Clinton supporters in '08 threw a bigger tantrum than you accuse Sanders supporters of throwing in '16.

At the end of the day, it’s a simple numbers game. If Democrats show up, a Democrat is elected.

And Clinton was shit at getting people to the polls. Turns out, "fuck you, shut up, you're voting for me" is a shit message. And before you accuse me of being a child who needs to be coddled to vote or whatever thing I can mark on my "centrist thought-terminating cliche" bingo card, I voted for her. Civic duty and all that. Unlike centrists, I can still recognize that you need to have a message and a candidate that gets people to the polls, and it's clear she didn't and wasn't.

Democrats love the old saw about Republicans falling in line but Democrats falling in love, but they still give us candidates no one loves and order us to fall in line. And then blame everyone but themselves for ignoring the political reality because they felt entitled to everyone's votes, regardless of how they acted.

[–] disguy_ovahea 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)
[–] Ensign_Crab -2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Believe whatever lie you want. Under all your self-deceit, you know that a better candidate would have beaten Trump.

[–] disguy_ovahea 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That I agree with.

Where we disagree is the impact of Democrats forgoing their right to vote.

I think, along with political analysts and pundits, that it allows Republicans to win and pushes the next candidate right.

You disagree, but don’t seem to have a clear argument, reason, or source to support your opinion.

[–] Ensign_Crab -5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You disagree, but don’t seem to have a clear argument, reason, or source to support your opinion.

You disagree and can't imagine any other idea having merit, particularly from your left, so you simply ignore what I'm saying or pretend I'm saying something else.

Voters are humans, and will act like humans. If you want them to vote for you, you have to get them to vote for you. Sitting back and being like "Lavish me with votes, worthless peons, for I am the Lesser Evil" has predictable results. Well, predictable to everyone but centrists who think that's a winning message because it's their internal monologue.

[–] disguy_ovahea 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That’s what primaries are for. Once we have a candidate, that’s it. It’s either them or the Republican candidate. Biden is incumbent. He’s the candidate. The options are vote for him or accept President Trump. It’s really that simple.

[–] Ensign_Crab -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm already voting for him. That doesn't mean I can't read the writing on the wall.

[–] disguy_ovahea 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. You always debate the same way. This wasn’t a debate about your vote. It was a discussion about what caused previous elections to fail, and why we have centrist Democrat candidates. Your self-centeredness makes it impossible to maintain focus of a discussion outside of your own interest.

[–] Ensign_Crab -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m not trying to convince you of anything. You always debate the same way.

As do you. When I've made a point you can't argue against, you start arguing why to vote for Biden, and when I say you're preaching to the choir, you call me selfish.

Biden still needs to convince voters to vote for him, and it doesn't matter that you think they should just be happy with what you're happy with.

[–] disguy_ovahea 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Do you even remember the point of this discussion? I disagreed with another commenter on the reliability of the moderate Democratic vote, citing the sizable abstentions in the 2016 election by progressives. You blamed the candidate. We’re looking at the exact same situation this election. It’s too late for Biden to step down, and he against Trump again.

Are you really going to blame the candidate again now that America saw the direct impact of abstention in 2016 giving Trump the win? The repercussions of this election rests completely on the shoulders of voters.

[–] Ensign_Crab -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You are pathologically incapable of imagining that voters are humans with agency.

[–] disguy_ovahea 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And you seem to think voting is some personal commitment to a candidate and not the simple numbers game that politicians use to gain control.

[–] Ensign_Crab -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Centrists are so fucking exhausting. Do any of you see voters as humans instead of demographics to be marketed to and exploited?

[–] disguy_ovahea 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m not a centrist. I’m an informed progressive who leverages my vote to get the closest elector to my ideals that is available. That absolutely results in “settling” to prevent another backslide in policy from a Republican win.

[–] Ensign_Crab -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I’m not a centrist.

if you say so.

I’m an informed progressive who leverages my vote to get the closest elector to my ideals that is available.

And yet you can't see that humans aren't numbers.

[–] disguy_ovahea 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I never said humans were numbers. That was your accusation.

I said elections were about numbers. Ask any political scientist.

[–] Ensign_Crab -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I said elections were about numbers.

Numbers of what?

[–] disguy_ovahea 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Strategic votes. Not people. If it were an actual representation of people, then Trump would never have been President, having lost the popular vote in 2016.

[–] Ensign_Crab -1 points 4 months ago

Strategic votes. Not people.

Yes, Numbers cast votes in your universe because numbers can be manipulated without putting in as much work.

If it were an actual representation of people, then Trump would never have been President, having lost the popular vote in 2016.

Clinton was such a shitty candidate that she didn't take the electoral college into account and didn't campaign to all those non-people you despise in the worthless flyover states. They were beneath her because numbers were gonna vote for her instead. Look at how that worked out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Yep, stone cold fact