this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
634 points (73.6% liked)

Political Memes

5598 readers
1573 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someguy3 73 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (20 children)

Abstaining or voting 3rd party to "make Dems listen" doesn't work. If anyone thinks they can play Mexican Standoff, you can't because the Dems have an out: the center voter. Every time they lose, they go to the center to find voters.

And remember they need all 3 of presidency, house of representatives, and senate to pass pretty much anything. If they don't have all 3 they will go to the center to find voters. Some people call this rachet effect, but really they're looking for voters. Want them to stop 'racheting'? Then give them consistent and overwhelming victories.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I've thought about that recently.

In Germany, the 2 historically biggest parties were SPD (used to be liberal-democrat) and CDU (conservative) and they often were the ones tugging it out while the smaller parties were filling in as coalition partners for one or the other.

Over time, the SPD splintered into several semi-big offshoot parties (Linke, for example) while the CDU stayed as a whole. As a result, CDU is now commonly a favorite for getting most votes in an election.

Is that consistent with politics across the globe? And if, why do liberal or center parties tend to split up more than conservatives?

[–] kitnaht 38 points 2 months ago

Because conservatives gravitate towards authority, and progressives are looking to break the status quo.

So conservatives value order, authority, and it causes them to fall in line.

Progressives are looking to break that order, believing that things can be better than they are right now. That causes them to infight more often.

[–] someguy3 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I commonly hear the left is a loose coalition of factions (which can split apart), while the right fall in line. I think there are fewer factions on the right, or the factions are not as far apart, so coming together is easier. They also unite in absolute hatred of the left, so will fall in line to slay that beast.

[–] sorval_the_eeter 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

100% agreed regarding coalitions, unfortunately centrists dont seem to know they are in a coalition, or that the party even has a platform. They are so spooked by trump that they will do or say anything to win. Anything.

Centrists on this thread today accuse Progressives of being members of the far right as a ploy to hide the fact that they are the ones pushing far right policies themselves. The centrists are much closer to being republicans anymore than they are to adhering to the traditional democratic party platform. Real Democrats wouldnt risk the drinking water of the whole continent to enable more fracking to big oil company donations. They wouldnt be ok with more school shootings to pander to the NRA donations (especially when the NRA is heavily infiltrated by Russia). And they wouldnt sponsor and enable a far rightwing genocidal war in the middle east -- pitting us against the entire rest of the world-- to draw foreign lobbying donations. But American progressives are somehow willing to swallow every bit of that traitorous behavior except one to get over the finish line together, whereas centrists are willing to change not a single damn thing to win, and proceed to whine and threaten.

[–] PrimeMinisterKeyes 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Counterexample: The European Parliament. IMHO, it looks like 4 right-wing groups, 2 left-wing ones and 2 centrist ones. While the exact positioning could be argued over, the right wing is quite certainly more fragmented than the left is.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

So vote for them regardless and then they will listen?

[–] someguy3 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Dems need all 3 (presidency, house of reps, Senate) to do pretty much anything. They've had that for [drumroll please] 4 out of the last 24 years. Or 6 of the last 32 years. Or 6 of the last 44 fucking years.

[–] MegaUltraChicken 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

They've had that for [drumroll please] 4 out of the last 24 years

It was significantly shorter than that when you consider Senate control to be 60, which is what's needed to bypass the fillibuster.

[–] someguy3 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

Supermajority was 4 months, out of the last 44 years. But whenever I mention that people think I'm fixated on that for some reason.

*Oh downvoted already. Some people really don't like hearing this.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sorval_the_eeter 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They honored the fillibuster by choice. They didnt have to.

[–] MegaUltraChicken 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

They never had 51 votes to repeal the fillibuster. Sinema and Manchin both refused to do so. Neither of which are Democrats anymore. We should elect more Democrats to the Senate that will.

[–] sorval_the_eeter 1 points 2 months ago

"Biden says eliminating filibuster would "throw the entire Congress into chaos"" https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/joe-biden-town-hall-filibuster/

[–] sorval_the_eeter 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Dems need all 3 (presidency, house of reps, Senate) to do pretty much anything.

Thats not how politics works buddy. If what you said were true neither the dems or republicans would have passed any bills in the history of the "republic". Clearly theres also horse trading, and bribery/lobbying you are pretending dont exist in order to make this weak point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

With the obstructionist MAGA caucus in your government that would rather vote no to bipartisan bills because it would give a Democrat a win, barely any bills get passed!

[–] RustyEarthfire 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is an incorrect framing of the situation. You aren't being asked for a Yes/No vote on Democrats. You are being asked if you prefer Democrats or Republicans. Or for this election, if you prefer Democracy or Fascism. If you vote "no preference", that does not communicate "I prefer the Democrats, but want them to move further left", either logically or politically.

There are lots of ways to communicate desired policy changes: letter-writing, primaries (including campaigning/funding for candidates), protests, marches, press, social-media, etc. Voting against your interest is not one of them.

[–] sorval_the_eeter 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You are being asked if you prefer Democrats or Republicans.

I understand why you'd say this. But you arent trying to understand why people are trying to pressure the dem leadership to be better.

[–] RustyEarthfire 1 points 2 months ago

I absolutely understand the anger at the Democratic party. I mention several useful activities to work toward fixing its many failings. The Republican party is strictly worse. Giving equal support to both is counterproductive.

[–] Stovetop 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

The more elections the far right loses, the more the overton window shifts to the left.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Democrats move further right to get votes from the center but when they win it'll go left trust me bro

[–] someguy3 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (14 children)

They go to the center when they lose. If they don't lose, they don't need to go to the center to find voters. You can see my other comment, they've only had all 3 houses for 4 out of the last 24 years.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

This, but unironically.

[–] sorval_the_eeter 2 points 2 months ago

I dont think thats true all the time. as we have seen with Biden, If a dem president is a centrist or far right for a dem, it shifts the entire party and the judiciary rightward. These things have monentum.

So I'd say its not simply the "D" that matters in overton shift. It also sets the topics in the political conversation, and either strengthens the party for the next election or leaves it in shattered and misaligned, like we are now about the unpopular far right wing genocide being pushed by a democratic US presidential administration.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

And remember they need all 3 of presidency, house of representatives, and senate to pass pretty much anything

The odds of Democrats keeping the Senate seem dismal. So it sounds like we're giving the party license to do nothing for another two years

[–] someguy3 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I like how you twist that to "party license". If the ~~people~~ voters vote that way, that is the will of the ~~people~~ voters. Don't like it? Vote. For Dems. (Though the GOP bear some responsibility being obstructionist pos.)

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 26 points 2 months ago (4 children)

If the ~~people~~ voters vote that way, that is the will of the ~~people~~ voters.

Sorry 50M Californians, but 40k West Virginians decided to go a different way. Guess this means no civil rights for another two years.

[–] someguy3 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

This is aimed at those people that think not voting or voting 3rd party is effective to "make Dems listen". It is not. Voters have a say.

[–] sorval_the_eeter 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Dems are a coalition. Centrists are not powerful enough within that coalition to act like utterly unaccountable god-kings. If that needs to be beaten into them then so be it.

[–] someguy3 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Lol I assume you mean that you (the leftist) will beat some message into the Dems. Dude, you will not win this Mexican Standoff because the Dems have an out: The center voter. Who, wait for it, actually shows up.

Alll your "beating" is beating yourself when you hand the overton window over to the GOP. It's the biggest self own in history.

[–] sorval_the_eeter 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

We'll see wont we. If progressives stay strong and dont vote early, I'd bet real money Harris caves on the weapons shipments.

[–] someguy3 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

What, are you slow walking your replies now that I called out you out? What part of when they lose they go to the center do you really not want to accept. Shipments will depend on Israel's actions. God why do I bother. Ciao.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I live in a red state, and the Democratic Party cannot even get enough warm bodies to ruin for every office here. The Libertarians do better with their candidates than the Democrats.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

The obviously the tactical strategy is to vote libertarian

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

so you think if we vote for them no matter what they do, they will start representing our wishes out of the goodness of their hearts, instead of Aipac's who come to them with palletloads of cash? Thats... an interesting theory.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)