• SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Not to mention the basic principle of democracy: political parties have a tendency to gravitate towards where the votes are.

    The Democratic party isn’t a static thing. They will move further left if it gets them more votes. They move right if that gets them more votes. If the Democrats go further right, it’s not to spite leftists screaming on the internet. It’s because leftists aren’t voting and screaming on the internet is meaningless.

    Leftists that aren’t voting are leftist that don’t actually want any leftist policies implemented. They just want to complain about policies not being implemented while doing nothing to make it happen. If they actually believe in the changes they say they want they’d be willing to vote in as many elections as necessary to see it happen. Over the course of decades id necessary. Voting in zero elections shows very dedication for what they claim to be important.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      They will move further left if it gets them more votes. They move right if that gets them more votes.

      Obama ran to Clinton’s left and was insanely popular. What way did the party move after his presidency?

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            The thing you were arguing about is that they will not move left even if it gets them more votes. You referenced 2016. It looks like they went towards the more votes even in 2016, no?

            You now wish to change your argument. “If Dems had ignored the more votes and gone further left, it would have won the election,” am I reading that correctly?

            I also preferred Sanders. But I don’t see how you can logically hold both those positions.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              The party saw that Obama was popular when he was to Clinton’s left. They moved right anyway. They lost. Yes, Clinton got more votes than Trump. They still moved to the right after it was demonstrated that moving left excited voters.

              They move right no matter what and make up excuses after the fact. At least until last week. And just look at how excited Democrats finally are. The dam has burst.

              • barsquid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Clinton got more votes than Sanders, that is why they went rightwards instead of leftwards. On the topic of that person saying leftists need to vote to move the needle, you claimed that was wrong. That’s delusional? You want them to ignore the majority of their voters and go left because you felt excited about Sanders? I did also but what the hell.

                I’m glad Harris is popular with the Dem majority who do reliably vote as well as the unreliable younger demographics. It is looking pretty good. I hope it does get voters excited enough to show up and I hope the leftward ones continue to participate in the future so that the needle swings in the correct direction.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  I’m glad Harris is popular with the Dem majority who do reliably vote as well as the unreliable younger demographics.

                  I’m glad the party decided to fucking listen for once. The enthusiasm is because they listened. The listening was not because of enthusiasm, but rather its absence.

                  • barsquid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    They listened in 2008 and ran Obama instead of Clinton, then they listened in 2016 and ran Clinton instead of Sanders. They have been listening to people who actually show up to vote, which was that person’s point.

                    How do you want them to behave such that they would have ignored the votes for Sanders but not ignored the votes for Obama? Please suggest a policy they can use which is consistent and has integrity, not just, “I was personally excited for candidate A therefore candidate A should have won the primaries.”