It’s kinda crazy to me that a sizable amount of people expect a perfect completely spotless candidate, or they don’t vote and hand over the win to fascism.
In a rational world, Harris would have won without even doing a single rally, because the alternative is Trump and his cronies.
People generally don’t realize that the only way to get an option to the left of the democrats is if Republicans no longer win elections. But with each “punishment”, voters give the democrats, the Republicans’ grip on power gets tighter and tighter, with more cronie judges, more gerrymandering, more voter purges, more ID rules, and more propaganda.
So, are the voters, or rather those who didn’t vote, wrong? Fuck yes, for the reason that because of them, we now have Trump as the US president rather than him going to prison like he deserves. Of course they are wrong. How is that even a question?
People generally don’t realize that the only way to get an option to the left of the democrats is if Republicans no longer win elections.
Absofuckinglutely wrong. The number of Democrats still buying this bullshit is astounding. THIS is why you lose so damn much.
No Democratic candidate has had more support from right leaning voters than Bernie Sanders in the last 30 years. Explain that with your model. It’s not just about some smooth gradient from left to right and capturing the middle. We are in a populist age. The people are totally fed up with the status quo.
It’s disruptors that win, not whomever captures the center of a spectrum that only policy wonks even care about. Anyone who’s chief concern is left vs right is already a decided voter.
Way to miss the point. Against Trump, it shouldn’t matter who the other candidate is. A fucking bucket of snails could have been candidate and I’d vote for it over it over fascism.
this is why you lose so damn much
“This candidate isn’t left enough for me. By not voting I essentially vote for fascism”. That is why democrats lose.
Would a more left leaning candidate have more chances? Maybe? No matter what, should it have mattered if the alternative is Trump? Absolutelyfucking not, but apparently it does.
Way to miss the point. Against Trump, it shouldn’t matter who the other candidate is.
That’s a useless point to make. Of course is shouldn’t matter. The important point is, it did matter. The disconnect between these two points ought to make you question your assumptions about how to win elections. Clinging desperately to a model that has failed over and over and over again is insanity.
“This candidate isn’t left enough for me. By not voting I essentially vote for fascism”
This is rhetorically a dumb way to argue. I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but it’s just to easy to point out that not voting for fascism would also have to be considered a vote against fascism. It’s just a dumb way to argue and just further antagonizes the person you are supposedly trying to convince. You don’t get votes by attacking voters.
Would a more left leaning candidate have more chances? Maybe?
A more populist candidate would have more chances. That does generally mean further left or right, but doesn’t necessarily have to be either. I want a leftist candidate but, honestly, an anti-corruption centrist might have as much of a chance. Big money billionaires buying politicians is extremely unpopular across the spectrum. Good luck getting a Democratic centrist to run on that though.
Yeah. I’m done talking to you. The way you argue shows that you rather be calling people names than actually make arguments. If you can’t be respectful in a discussion, I’m not gonna waste my time with you.
Against Trump, it shouldn’t matter who the other candidate is. A fucking bucket of snails could have been candidate and I’d vote for it over it over fascism.
And what is it called when there is only “one correct choice” on a ballot? It might have been the lesser evil, but I think the USA needs to get off their high horse and come to terms with the end of their democracy, if the only option is to vote one way.
During Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign in 1992, he employed a strategy to appeal to moderate and right-leaning voters, which helped him secure support from some traditionally Republican constituencies. Here are key points about Clinton’s approach and support from right-wing voters:
Centrist Positioning
Clinton positioned himself as a “New Democrat,” advocating for centrist policies that appealed to moderate and conservative voters[2]. This included:
Emphasizing fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget
Supporting welfare reform
Taking a tough stance on crime
Promoting free trade
Targeting Reagan Democrats
Clinton specifically aimed to win back “Reagan Democrats” - working-class white voters who had previously supported Republicans[6]. He focused on economic issues and cultural values that resonated with this group.
“Triangulation” Strategy
Clinton used a strategy of “triangulation,” which involved:
Distancing himself from traditional liberal Democratic positions
Adopting some conservative policy stances
Positioning himself between the liberal wing of the Democratic Party and Republicans[7]
Appeal to Suburban Voters
Clinton made significant inroads with suburban voters, including many who had previously voted Republican[2]. His moderate positions on social and economic issues appealed to this demographic.
Breaking the “Republican Lock”
Clinton’s strategy helped him win states that had been part of the Republican “lock” on the Electoral College, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin[6].
While Clinton did not win a majority of right-wing voters, his centrist approach and focus on economic issues allowed him to peel away enough support from traditionally Republican constituencies to win the election. This strategy was controversial within the Democratic Party but proved effective in the general election[2][7].
I didn’t have time to write a book. The examples I gave were more than sufficient to get the point across. A couple of minor exceptions don’t disprove the rule. COVID and abortion dominated in 2022, and Trump looked more like the status quo than a disruptor in 2018.
The half that were victories are when the Republicans took the more centrist approach and Democrats ran as disruptors. Remember Obama’s “Change!” slogan? Too bad he didn’t mean it.
I note that you only used one election from over a quarter of a century ago to support your argument.
Its a two party system. You will not get anything close to a working progressive government until there are more then two. If the Dems win, they get a bit more corrupt and take money to slide a bit right. If they lose, they slide right to “capture” more votes/money (the money works the votes not so much).
The nasty things that get done (say under 2016 trump) are not undone by the Democrats when next in power. This makes them at best an enabler of crap policy and at worst (also most likely) guilty of using the bad actions of the Republicans to stay in power.
I don’t know how at this point you doods can fix it, but you don’t have a democracy at the moment. Its just authoritarianism under threat of worse authoritarianism.
It’s kinda crazy to me that a sizable amount of people expect a perfect completely spotless candidate, or they don’t vote and hand over the win to fascism.
In a rational world, Harris would have won without even doing a single rally, because the alternative is Trump and his cronies.
People generally don’t realize that the only way to get an option to the left of the democrats is if Republicans no longer win elections. But with each “punishment”, voters give the democrats, the Republicans’ grip on power gets tighter and tighter, with more cronie judges, more gerrymandering, more voter purges, more ID rules, and more propaganda.
So, are the voters, or rather those who didn’t vote, wrong? Fuck yes, for the reason that because of them, we now have Trump as the US president rather than him going to prison like he deserves. Of course they are wrong. How is that even a question?
Absofuckinglutely wrong. The number of Democrats still buying this bullshit is astounding. THIS is why you lose so damn much.
No Democratic candidate has had more support from right leaning voters than Bernie Sanders in the last 30 years. Explain that with your model. It’s not just about some smooth gradient from left to right and capturing the middle. We are in a populist age. The people are totally fed up with the status quo.
It’s disruptors that win, not whomever captures the center of a spectrum that only policy wonks even care about. Anyone who’s chief concern is left vs right is already a decided voter.
Way to miss the point. Against Trump, it shouldn’t matter who the other candidate is. A fucking bucket of snails could have been candidate and I’d vote for it over it over fascism.
“This candidate isn’t left enough for me. By not voting I essentially vote for fascism”. That is why democrats lose.
Would a more left leaning candidate have more chances? Maybe? No matter what, should it have mattered if the alternative is Trump? Absolutelyfucking not, but apparently it does.
That’s a useless point to make. Of course is shouldn’t matter. The important point is, it did matter. The disconnect between these two points ought to make you question your assumptions about how to win elections. Clinging desperately to a model that has failed over and over and over again is insanity.
This is rhetorically a dumb way to argue. I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but it’s just to easy to point out that not voting for fascism would also have to be considered a vote against fascism. It’s just a dumb way to argue and just further antagonizes the person you are supposedly trying to convince. You don’t get votes by attacking voters.
A more populist candidate would have more chances. That does generally mean further left or right, but doesn’t necessarily have to be either. I want a leftist candidate but, honestly, an anti-corruption centrist might have as much of a chance. Big money billionaires buying politicians is extremely unpopular across the spectrum. Good luck getting a Democratic centrist to run on that though.
Yeah. I’m done talking to you. The way you argue shows that you rather be calling people names than actually make arguments. If you can’t be respectful in a discussion, I’m not gonna waste my time with you.
Your tantrum might be more convincing had I actually called you or anyone else a name. As for tone, read your own comments.
And what is it called when there is only “one correct choice” on a ballot? It might have been the lesser evil, but I think the USA needs to get off their high horse and come to terms with the end of their democracy, if the only option is to vote one way.
During Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign in 1992, he employed a strategy to appeal to moderate and right-leaning voters, which helped him secure support from some traditionally Republican constituencies. Here are key points about Clinton’s approach and support from right-wing voters:
Centrist Positioning
Clinton positioned himself as a “New Democrat,” advocating for centrist policies that appealed to moderate and conservative voters[2]. This included:
Targeting Reagan Democrats
Clinton specifically aimed to win back “Reagan Democrats” - working-class white voters who had previously supported Republicans[6]. He focused on economic issues and cultural values that resonated with this group.
“Triangulation” Strategy
Clinton used a strategy of “triangulation,” which involved:
Appeal to Suburban Voters
Clinton made significant inroads with suburban voters, including many who had previously voted Republican[2]. His moderate positions on social and economic issues appealed to this demographic.
Breaking the “Republican Lock”
Clinton’s strategy helped him win states that had been part of the Republican “lock” on the Electoral College, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin[6].
While Clinton did not win a majority of right-wing voters, his centrist approach and focus on economic issues allowed him to peel away enough support from traditionally Republican constituencies to win the election. This strategy was controversial within the Democratic Party but proved effective in the general election[2][7].
Citations: [1] An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/ [2] Controversy: Why Did Clinton Win? - The American Prospect https://prospect.org/power/controversy-clinton-win/ [3] In Their Own Words: Why Voters Support – and Have Concerns About https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/09/21/in-their-own-words-why-voters-support-and-have-concerns-about-clinton-and-trump/ [4] Basket of deplorables - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables [5] Governing in an Age of No Majorities: Bill Clinton’s mission for a … https://www.brookings.edu/articles/governing-in-an-age-of-no-majorities-bill-clintons-mission-for-a-second-term/ [6] Here’s how Democrats have changed since the Bill Clinton era https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/democratic-party-dnc-bill-clinton-era-changes-rcna166669 [7] Bill Clinton: Campaigns and Elections | Miller Center https://millercenter.org/president/clinton/campaigns-and-elections [8] Don’t understand Trump supporters? Remembering Bill Clinton … https://kansasreflector.com/2024/08/03/dont-understand-trump-supporters-remembering-bill-clinton-might-help-you/
That’s an impressive writeup. Here is the problem. This is 2024, not 1992. Clinton’s strategy has not aged well.
2008 - Hillary and McCain both ran a centrist strategy and lost to Obama who ran as a disruptor. Obama gets a mandate.
2010 - Democrats lose Congress and the mandate on a centrist strategy.
2012 - Obama almost loses to Mit Romney with both running centrist strategies.
2016 - Hillary loses on a centrist strategy against Trump who is clearly not a centrist.
2020 - Biden barely moves towards a disruptor position and barely beats Trump who should have been easily beatable.
2024 - Need I say it?
Out of your 6 examples half of them involve Democratic victories and you noticeably left 2018 and 2022 for not fitting in with your straw man
I didn’t have time to write a book. The examples I gave were more than sufficient to get the point across. A couple of minor exceptions don’t disprove the rule. COVID and abortion dominated in 2022, and Trump looked more like the status quo than a disruptor in 2018.
The half that were victories are when the Republicans took the more centrist approach and Democrats ran as disruptors. Remember Obama’s “Change!” slogan? Too bad he didn’t mean it.
I note that you only used one election from over a quarter of a century ago to support your argument.
Good luck with shaming people into voting for you. It didn’t work in 2016 and it didn’t work now. Letting the DNC off the hook won’t change anything.
Its a two party system. You will not get anything close to a working progressive government until there are more then two. If the Dems win, they get a bit more corrupt and take money to slide a bit right. If they lose, they slide right to “capture” more votes/money (the money works the votes not so much).
The nasty things that get done (say under 2016 trump) are not undone by the Democrats when next in power. This makes them at best an enabler of crap policy and at worst (also most likely) guilty of using the bad actions of the Republicans to stay in power.
I don’t know how at this point you doods can fix it, but you don’t have a democracy at the moment. Its just authoritarianism under threat of worse authoritarianism.
It’s almost like you can’t fix everything in 4 years, especially with midterms.
If it was so easy to undo things, Obamacare would have been dismantled in the first trump term.
But since things weren’t fixed fast enough, let’s let the people who broke everything back in power again.
Yet the Republicans seem to have no issues undoing things every 4 years.
Obamacare was crippeled last time I looked into it. But maybe it’s different then what I see from up here.
Obamacare is still there, last i checked.