483
Even Bernie didn't vote third party when it counted.
(lemmy.world)
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 18 Oct 2024
483 points (90.5% liked)
Political Memes
5354 readers
3102 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'll keep saying it: This is not a Mexican standoff you can win because the Dems have an out: the center voter. If you want the Dems to stop going center, they have to win all 3 houses consistently. They've had all 3 for only 4 of the last 24 years.
Also that one time, if I recall correctly, had a bunch of Dems who were "pro-life" and vaguely Dem to get votes but not really progressive at all.
I'll never forgive Joe Lieberman.
"Blue Dogs". 2010 and 2012 erased a lot of them.
Why do they move further and further center? Because they lose. They lose almost all the time. They need all 3 (house of reps, Senate, presidency) to do much of anything. And they've had that for, drumroll please, 4 of the last 24 years. Or 6 of the last 32 years. Or 6 of the last 44 years. When they lose they go to the center to find voters. You're talking as if they had control, but they didn't.
Going to the center is why they are losing. Jimmy Carter was a centrist who tried to distance the party from the New Deal. He was wildly unpopular, which is why Ted Kennedy primaried him from the left. Kennedy lost the primary but Carter lost the presidency. Mondale and Dukakis were both moving to the center as well, and they both failed to beat Regan and Bush, respectively.
Clinton was the only centrist to win, and that probably had more to do with the fact that Ross Perot took a huge portion of the electorate (19%) than anything else. Gore and Kerry were another set of centrist losers, followed by Obama, who was a centrist President but a progressive candidate who won the primary by going to Hillary's left. Hillary was a historic loss, and while Biden is a considered a centrist, he's also very pro-labor, and ran a progressive platform against an incredibly unpopular president.
You're absolutely right about what's happening; the Democrats are going to the center to find voters. But when they go further from the left, it costs them voters, so they go even further towards the right to try to get new votes, which costs them more voters, over and over again in a feedback loop that, frankly, you could only get stuck in by either being completely incompetent or deliberately obtuse. You need to start blaming the party for losing voters, not the voters for being abandoned by the party.
Ah excellent you can be today's explanation:
Ok let's go through this chronologically.
Bill Clinton: After successive Dem losses Bill figured out "it's the economy stupid", aka center policy, not leftist policy. Plus when you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you generally run from the center. So that's what he did. And he won.
Gore: You think Gore was centrist? Lol that's a first for me. So: 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 broad "hope" and "yes we can" and having energy, hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush's disastrous wars. And he won.
More on Obama: So he enacted the ACA. That's great, right? The thanks Obama got for that was to lose the House of Representatives for year 3 and 4. And lose the House of reps again for years 5 and 6. And then lose both the House of reps and the Senate for years 7 and 8 (maybe that's the time you think he was centrist, when he lost control of Congress). He enacted left policy and: The left never shows up.
Hillary Clinton: So what did Hillary learn from the last 6 years of Obama? She learned that the left never shows up. So she only stuck her head out with a big position to left on the map room to climate change. She basically declared war on climate change. You know that big existential issue that all the leftists care about, right? The big important issue that the left says they want so badly, right? And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters! Aka: The left never shows up.
Biden: Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don't stick your head out left on anything. Not one thing. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. And he won.
More on Biden: But did left things anyway. He Biden did green energy, EVs, drug price control, PACT act, etc. And what were the results? Lost the House of Representatives for years 3 and 4. Polls showed him losing the election to Trump. He enacted left policy and: The left didn't show up for midterms, and was not going to show up for the next election.
Harris: So guess what Harris is doing? She's adopting Obama's tactic to run on broad "get ahead" and having energy. From what I know she's not announced anything left, other than broad tax the billionaires. She has no reason to think the left will ever show up.
And people are amazed that they don't run a big left platform? Every time they stick their head left they lose. Every Single Time. And the next guy learns to go to the center to win. Because the center voters actually show up.
You have this completely backwards. They lose every time they even look toward the left (the only time you can say this was maybe not the case was Obama, though I say he knew he couldn't say a thing, so he relied on being broadly hopeful). The Dems only win when they go center.
With this history, you’d be an absolute fool to cater to and rely on the left. Because. They. Never. Show. Up.
So how do you get them to move left? By giving them victories first. Consistent and overwhelming victories. Show them it's safe to take policy chances. 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.
And don't forget, a centrist vote is worth double. Because it's both a vote taken away from the other party and a vote for you. And unlike the left as seen above, the center actually shows up. You can rely on them showing up, unlike the left.
Perfect example of being willfully obtuse; 19% of the popular vote went to a third-party millionaire that year, but you're pretending it didn't happen.
I'm sure it is new to you, but yes, he was considered a centrist since his 1988 run. He picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate, did you think that was progressive?
First off, "Yes we can," was his campaign slogan, but, "Hope," came from artist Shepard Fairey. Second, he actually had very detailed progressive policy proposals and campaign promises, including Universal Healthcare, homeowner bailouts, Wallstreet regulation, codifying Roe, and abolishing warrentless wire taps, and that's just off the top of my head. If you thought his platform was vague, you weren't paying attention.
And then she traveled to 1965 to tell herself to become a college Republican? And then 1992 to tell herself to support her husband's gutting of Welfare? And then to 1996 to call black children, "Super Predators?" She didn't learn anything from Obama. She was always a centrist, and you're just making stuff up to try to craft a narrative.
Biden has been in politics 20 years longer than Clinton, I don't think he was looking for notes from her. And, again, despite being pretty centrist (hawkish, tough on crime, strong labor support, mixed record in segregation because he's 400 years old), he did stick his neck out for the left. The BBB was a huge progressive wishlist, and he's still trying to get some student debt relief.
President's usually take a loss in their first midterm after the, "honeymoon," wears off, and in 2022, polling was predicting a huge, "Red Wave," that never happened. The Democrats narrowly lost the House, but the results were generally considered a disappointment for the Republicans.
Anyway, I skimmed the rest of this, and it's not worth going over. It basically seemed like a retread of everything you've already said, and that's mostly ahistorical nonsense tied together into a loose narrative with the confidence and understanding of a freshman that just finished POLI SCI 101. Instead, I'll just leave you with this study from the Pew Research Center that indicates people on either ends of the political spectrum are more likely to vote and donate to campaigns than people moderate views. So, looks like it's the center, not the left, that doesn't show up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And:
Fucking lol, hypocritical much? Glad I read to the end first so that I know anything that I say will also be “Skimmed over” and deemed “not worth going over”. So I’ll just hit a few points.
Oh yeah, once someone runs one platform they can never, never, never change anything 12 years later. Nope. /s
Gore ran a campaign on climate change. That’s pretty left.
I remember that one, what I remember was broad hope (yes), “yes we can” energy. It was all about getting past Bush's horrible administration and moving on. Homeowner bailout? After the subprime mortgage collapse? Shocked pikachu face. Wallstreet after the great recession? Shocked. Warrantless taps as the war path was starting to fad? These are not far left ideas after that crash and war on terror. Codifying Roe? Didn't get voters out because voters saw it as secure anyway. That was the car the GOP dog was never supposed to catch. BBB? The infrastructure talk is, frankly, normal. Both sides talk about it.
Lol yeah you seem to rely on this trick of people can never, never, ever change anything about their platform, or policies, or adjust to information on the ground. Everyone and everything is set in stone for you huh.
WOW you really do rely super heavy on this huh, 3rd times the charm. Yes you look at how the most recent election panned out and why lol.
Doesn’t matter, he lost it. And when they lose, they go to the center to find voters. Because they need all 3 to do pretty much anything and they know it.
You refuse to read what other people say, attack them, and then want them to read your link. Fucking lol. I think it's because you have no response, especially to how a center voter is worth double.
*Skimmed (lol) the article. More active posting? Doesn't matter. More active voting? Voting for who? Voting for 3rd party is the whole problem. Nothing the Dems do will ever be enough for them, they will vote 3rd party like they did to Gore, or do the protest non-vote like they did to Hillary (and 2020 was only to get Trump out of office). You're going to go after those people who are never satisfied and never show up for Dems, while sacrificing the center worth double? Path to certain loss. No wonder you "skimmed" my reply, you have no response that you'd be an absolute fool to cater to or rely on the left.
Your ignorance is stunning. Your entire knowledge of Al Gore is that he was pro-environment, and, "environment = left-wing," but you have no understanding of his role within the Clinton administration, like promoting NAFTA or Welfare reform. I don't even know why this is a debate, as you're just factually wrong; here's the NY Times calling him fiscally conservative in 2000. Here's the LA times reflecting on his centrist platform in 2004. The idea that he ran as a progressive is nonsense.
I have no idea what your point is about the Obama administration. You seem to be saying, yes, all of his policies were progressive, but they don't count because Bush was unpopular. Not sure what the logic is there, but at least you're tacitly admitting you were wrong when you claimed he his campaign was vague, so that's something.
You also seem to think that bringing up people's past policy positions is some kind of dirty trick I'm playing (which would explain why you have such a poor understanding of history), but for the record, yes, Hillary Clinton's 25 year record as a centrist was relevant to her 2016 campaign. I don't know what to tell you, if you have a decades long record as a centrist, then run as a centrist with a centrist running mate, people will think you're a centrist (true of Gore and HRC).
I went back and read the bits I skimmed, and yeah, I was right, you just repeated yourself. Maybe edit yourself a bit, especially when you don't know what you're talking about. But, for the record, your premise is obviously faulty; if you vote for them when they move to the center, the takeaway isn't going to be that it's safe to go to the left, it will be that it's safe to go to the center. But either way, it doesn't matter, because the geriatrics that run the party are so haunted by Regan's legacy that they will never go left, no matter how often they lose trying to gain the center.
Anyway, still very telling that you won't address the fact that Ross Perot played a huge part in the 1992 election, but I'm sure you'd have to Google, "Who is Ross Perot?" first. But thanks for, "today's explanation," really funny stuff!
Ah you open with an attack, always a good way to start a nice productive conversation huh! Skimming first you are rife with attacks (just like your last message) so this will be my last reply. There's little productive discussion when I see someone acting like that.
Yeah environmentalism is pretty left wing. And it wasn't just environmental like anti smog that pretty much everyone agreed on. It was climate change. You know CO2, the new thing.
Your first article is paywalled. But to address your text: Fiscally conservative? You can be relatively fiscally conservative and still implement left policy. It's a common mistake to think left policy is wildly expense. But the first articles actual title: "Top goals is steady reduction of nation's debt". Debt reduction? That's what you're saying defines him as not left? Yeah you can reduce the debt while doing left things. Especially not so difficult to do when Clinton left a surplus.
Second article: "What has gone mostly unnoticed, however, is a change in the man’s voice. It is often now that of an unapologetic populist." Tone of voice? That's what you're linking? This isn't a deep analysis, this is a feeling story time piece. "Then he lit into almost every aspect of the Bush administration. “I think this is the worst foreign policy that any president has ever made in the history of the United States,” Gore said." Yeah after the wars you might speak a little bit louder. I'm only skimming this because of the next point:
I see you're still demanding people read your links (long ones at that) when you openly said you "skim" people's replies and don't reply to what's said. Hypocritical much? Shows how you operate. You demand people do things that you take great glee in not doing, while attacking that they even wrote anything at all.
Obama? I already explained. He ran center and won. Your list of things bailing out homeowners? Not exactly far left lol, that's just reactionary to oh I don't know the subprime mortgage crisis that tanked people. I already explained each point.
So Obama. He ran center. And he won. Aka he learned from Gore to not rely on the left that doesn't show up.
I already explained this. When in office, he acted left. He ran center relying on hope and yes we can. But when he got in after the election, he acted left. And the thanks for acting left was to lose Congress. Aka: the left never shows up.
It's not a "dirty" trick that works like you're trying to suggest. Well I already explained it, you're trying to suggest that no one ever changes their platform, changes their thinking, to adjust to information on the ground. Your argument is that if Gore did a center thing 12 years ago, or for Hillary 2016-1965 = 51 years prior that that person is now set in stone forever. It's a ludicrous "trick" that might sound good on the surface. But when you think about it, it makes no sense - unless you think that people are set in stone and can never, never, never change anything they ever think.
You mean I went through each candidate, and then summarized? But you have to attack lol. The summary was a little long because I both summarized and responded to you.
Ah I've seen this trick before too! A common strategy. You sandwich your brief statement in attacks. You attack to throw the person off, then you quickly follow up with the actual point, hoping the person is too distracted by the attack. In this case followed up by some not so relevant stuff, before quickly going to the next attack to continue to throw them off!
Do I address the attacks? So I wear myself out with that? Do I address the point, and let the attacks go? Which makes you feel like I can't address the attacks. Do I address it all, at which is very long and becomes more me just "defending" myself, which makes me look weak. I see your strategy all the time.
I think calling out your attack strategy addresses that, so I'll continue to the actual point:
Which the Dems lose, they go to the center to find voters. You're not rewarding them (to use your parlance). It's that every time they go left they lose. Every single time, the left does not show up. So the next guy learns to go center to get votes. And they win when they go center. But even then someone will run a left thing, or enact a left thing, and then they lose again. So back to the center to win. You want them to move left? The left needs to reward them when they run left or do left things, but that's never done. See the history in my previous reply. I'm just repeating myself.
And like I said, quickly followed by more attacks! Boy I recognize your structure.
Which I already addressed too! Like before I'm just repeating myself. You openly said you are only skimming what I write, because it's not worthy of your attention. So I said "So I'll just hit a few [key] points". You openly said you didn't read , but you want people to drill down on every little bit that you grace other people a response to. Fucking lol at the hypocrisy.
So do I respond to Perot, when I've already had to repeat myself time and time again. I'm tempted to and actually started writing. but I see no point given what I see. And this is long enough.
So now do I list alllll the things you didn't respond to? Look how long this is already.
So like I said that's my last response because you're gleefully ignoring what's said (skimming technically) while demanding I go through your links, I'm just repeating myself, and most of all: Your rife reliance on attacks. Have at your next round of attacks. Ciao
No, it’s because you can’t get anything done in the American federal government without clear majority support from at least both houses of congress, just by the nature of how the government works and the current partisan climate. Democrats cannot pass progressive legislation without that support. Republicans are consistently successful in their goals because their goals do not require passing legislation; they require blocking it.
This is naive. Democrats have been stringing you along, decade after decade saying one thing and doing another, using whatever excuse they have available, and you seriously think they're just waiting for the perfect time to unleash all this progressive legislation? Theyll just keep moving the goalposts as long as they have a willing voter base who never questions them because theyre better (undeniably true but still not good enough) than the evil republicans. They set up the opposition as the ultimate boogeyman so you'll never question their half-measures. You should demand more when you have the power and leverage.
Right, yeah, they’re evil and they’ve had unfettered power to enact popular policy that would work in their favor for decades but haven’t done any of it yet because we’re dumb sheeple who actually understand how the U.S. political system works