325
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
325 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19248 readers
2146 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So fucking ridiculous Dems are going after Republican endorsements like this while still ignoring the left wing of their own fucking party.
We don't need republican votes if we give Dem voters what they want to vote for.
It's just the donors want the same things as republicans, so moderates will always go right for donors
We need to start treating votes as the important part
The elector college is based on States, not population.
Right...
And if you want to see someone flip red states more than Obama, you have to go back to FDR...
Progressive campaigns flip red states
We have literally over a century of election data. We know what works.
It's just not what the wealthy do saying to both parties want.
Are you still confused about anything
People actually on the left only have one choice, people in-between have two, no matter how progressive you go young people (who tend to be on the left) don't vote (we also have data from other countries to prove that they don't vote even when there's parties that actually want to work for them).
So, where do you think there's more votes to be gained?
If they vote....
You know the most common reason?
If the party moves left, that disappears and Dems donate, up and down the ballots.
But we don't do that, when it happens the party fights it as much as possible
The incredibly large segment of possible voters who think both parties are shit and don't fight thru red state voter suppression regularly...
But will turn out for a charismatic dem who runs a progressive campaign...
Neoliberal moderates tho. Can barely beat trump...
You legitimately don't understand the difference between a campaign like Obama's to Biden and Hillary's?
This is a good lesson. My understanding is that the fewest people ever voted in 2016, when the GOP won, and the most in 2020, when the GOP lost.
So definitely need to encourage eligible folks to get out and vote, and it goes without saying that a platform that attracts voters is a must.
One key difference is that Obama was first elected in 2008, before the GOP's plan in 2010 with redistricting was able to take effect - https://billmoyers.com/story/in-2010-republicans-weaponized-gerrymandering-heres-how-they-did-it/
(I know he did win re-election 2012, but he had the incumbent advantage back then and the GOP had only had two years to take advantage at that point, instead of the six years of experience they had later in 2016.)
Obama was one of these. Remember how in 2008 he wasn't for gay marriage, but he eventually supported it after his views "evolved" while he was in office?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/evolution-obamas-stance-gay-marriage-flna763350
The other thing worth pointing out, is that while record numbers voted in 2020, there were some who voted an otherwise straight GOP ticket but for Biden-Harris, as per https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/16/split-ticket-voting-texas-republicans/
Also check out these charts https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/10/PP_2020.10.21_split-icket-voting_0-01.png from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/10/21/large-shares-of-voters-plan-to-vote-a-straight-party-ticket-for-president-senate-and-house/
4% of voters split R/D. I can't imagine anything more than a negligible amount were from Dems who voted for orange voldermort. Therefore, that 4% can be attributed to Republicans who voted for Biden.
So even with record turnout, the difference was small. 42 vs 38? Give that 4% back to the GOP and, with their Electoral College advantage, they'd have won in 2020.
All this goes to show that while you are correct about needing to encourage turnout, and keep ahold of the Dem voters, you're wrong about not needing Republican votes.
Obama was economically right of Reagan.
Whut?!
I understand that the people you want the party to cater to don't vote no matter the options presented to them (as is proven by every free elections in other countries, I know some people have a hard time understanding that other countries exist, but make an effort here) and that even if they did, gerrymandering and voter suppression makes it so they can't flip their State.
A lot has changed since Roosevelt believe it or not.
Wait...
So you think we should ignore voters on the left unless they already want to vote D?
What does gerrymandering have to do with the electoral college?
Do you think they're redrawing state lines?
Or do you just not know what that word means?
Nothing directly, but it'd be naive to say it has no effect whatsoever.
I believe OC is talking about gerrymandering within a State to ensure all of that's State's electoral college votes go to the GOP.
So normally gerrymandering doesn't apply since the electoral votes in a State are awarded based on the popular vote within the State - so if the GOP wins Texas 51% to 49% for Dems, all of Texas's votes go to the GOP.
Gerrymandering could only has a direct effect in States like Nebraska and Maine, who distribute part of their votes by congressional district.
Where it might have an indirect effect is when people get confused and end up voting in the wrong place because of redistricting. Combine that with stricter rules on voter id and voting in general, and it's easy to see how some votes can be justified as being thrown away.
What are they expecting out of not voting? Do they not care if Trump or Harris win? I just really don't get why you wouldn't vote here.
There also were enough people who didn't vote for or against the NSDAP because they also disagreed with the other parties... It's not about voting for a party you agree with, it's about voting for the party with which you agree more / disagree less than with the other parties.
Well, it's roughly based on population, but the inclusion of two electoral votes for each state "just for being a state" tips the scale in favor of voters in less urban, more rural states.
So this is a bit insightful,
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/biden-voting-counties-equal-70-of-americas-economy-what-does-this-mean-for-the-nations-political-economic-divide/
Of course that's important, but keep in mind how the Electoral College disadvantages States with large populations and gives greater weight (on a per-vote level) to those voting in smaller states. https://www.vox.com/2021/1/11/22224700/electoral-college-joe-biden-donald-trump-bias-four-points-one-chart
So there's a need to win over voters in particular states, hence the parties shifts to the "center".
The extreme left is much smaller than the center. And they already have most of those lefty votes.
It would be stupid to alienate centrists over leftists if you are looking to win.
The "extreme left" isn't what I'm talking about
I'm talking about 08 Obama who would be a down the middle.moderate everywhere else being our most "extreme left" president and flipping a shit ton of red states blue
Healthcare and 99% of the progressive platform is what the average American wants. Who the fucl.is calling that "extreme" except trumpets and Joe Biden level "moderates"?
When Obama was running for President in 08, he had to say he was against gay marriage, signal his approval of school vouchers because he was trying to appeal to people in the center and republicans who were very, very, very unhappy with Bush.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_and_conservative_support_for_Barack_Obama_in_2008?utm_source=perplexity
And the rightward march continues.
Who is telling you things?
And why do you keep listening to them?
And yes, when we run a progressive campaign, we lose a very very tiny amount of "moderates" the "Puma" Clinton supporters from 08.
But we more than make up for them by gaining nonvoters, and yes, even Republicans will cross to vote for a progressive.
All the more reason to stop moving to the right when shown over and over again that's a bad move for getting votes.
It's just what donors want.
We've come full circle, I truly hope this helped you
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama publicly opposed same-sex marriage, advocating instead for civil unions that would provide similar legal rights to marriage. This stance was largely seen as a political decision influenced by the prevailing social and religious sentiments at the time, particularly within the black church community, which held significant opposition to gay marriage[1][3][4].
Obama's position on same-sex marriage during the campaign was consistent with his statements at events like the Saddleback Presidential Forum, where he described marriage as a "sacred union" between a man and a woman[2][7]. Despite his public opposition, it was later revealed by David Axelrod, his former political strategist, that Obama privately supported same-sex marriage but chose not to express this publicly due to political considerations[1][4].
Obama's stance began to evolve publicly after his election, culminating in his endorsement of same-sex marriage in 2012, following Vice President Joe Biden's public support for it[3].
Citations: [1] Axelrod: Obama opposed gay marriage for politics - The Hill https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/232272-axelrod-obama-opposed-gay-marriage-for-politics/ [2] See Obama's 20-Year Evolution on LGBT Rights | TIME https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/ [3] Obama: I didn't lie about same-sex marriage - POLITICO https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/barack-obama-gay-marriage-david-axelrod-115107 [4] David Axelrod: Barack Obama Misled Nation On Gay Marriage In 2008 https://time.com/3702584/gay-marriage-axelrod-obama/ [5] Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_campaign [6] FACT SHEET: Obama Administration's Record and the LGBT ... https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/09/fact-sheet-obama-administrations-record-and-lgbt-community [7] Campaign Issues and Candidate Positions https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/web/pages/instructors/setups2008/campaign-issues.html [8] Barack Obama: Campaigns and Elections | Miller Center https://millercenter.org/president/obama/campaigns-and-elections
So you think incremental progress is the opposite of progress?
That's like saying Obamacare makes him anti-M4A...
But thanks for explaining why you believe that, I genuinely couldn't even come up with a guess.
You went from Obama won because of his strong left-wing appeal to Obama won because of incremental progress after getting his stance on gay marriage in 08 wrong.
While you're moving your goal posts, please consider that Kamala is also doing the whole incremental progress thing.
🥰
Nope.
He's the most progressive campaign in modern history, but really wasn't that progressive...
That's the point. We dont need "extreme leftists" to turn out voters and flip red states.
We just need better than Biden/Hillary.
Kamala is better than those two, but she's also pro-fracking, wants a border wall, and lots of other shit the Dem.voter base doesn't fucking want.
How many fracking jobs are in Pennsylvania and how important is Pennsylvania to win the election?
So years ago when she sided with republicans and cast the tiebreaking vote against a fracking ban....
She was planning to run as president and need Pennsylvania?
Or are you just trying to rationalize her behavior after the fact instead of actually learning what really happened?
Harris, who ran for President in 2020 — and is in the upper echelon of the DNC, voted in favour of fracking in Biden's IRA bill because she:
A) Was planning on running for President again and needs Pennsylvania
And
B) Wants democrats in Senate and Congressional races to win in Pennsylvania so her party can hold power in those chambers.
There is nothing about her behaviour that needs rationalizing. Every stance she has compromised on is in service of getting elected and maintaining the power bases that she needs to hold onto power.
Those are hardly the only issues before voters today.
I don't see any "moderates" calling that extreme. I'd say it's just the former.
Agreed.
In other words, this is a winning strategy!