388
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Xariphon@kbin.social 138 points 1 year ago

How about both of you go the fuck home and let an actual progressive do some actual good for once?

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 79 points 1 year ago

That would require getting elected, which would require them being broadly popular.

[-] Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago

Barack Obama pulled off a surprise victory over the established Democratic candidates by campaigning on a message of hope and change. Of course his administration ended up only slightly more progressive than a standard Democrat's, but the fact remains that a non-mainstream candidate can run and win on the promise of progressive reform.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 39 points 1 year ago

I think Biden has been more progressive then Obama. Yeah, Obama was a minority and he was a damn good orator and importantly he wasn't Hillary. He represented progress. But his actual policies? Nah. There is something aspirational about having someone who isn't another old white man, and I think Obama was a decent President, just not particularly progressive.

[-] Daft_ish@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I like to think Obama walked the worlds highest tight rope and never flinched. That was more progress than America had ever seen before. He also established that it is character not color that makes a leader. The current GOP rather burn it all down than accept these simple truths.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Biden is more protectionist, which is a damn shame, but what we need right now, sadly.

[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

And the established dem party learned from their mistakes. It will be much tougher to slide a progressive by again.

[-] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

You can tell by how the DNC bent over backwards to accomodate Sanders and his campaign, even changing the plan to get rid of the Iowa Caucus as the first primary election since Sanders thought it would favor him in 2019. (Then Buttigieg won it instead)

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Of course his administration ended up only slightly more progressive than a standard Democrat’s

This is why I liked Obama.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 39 points 1 year ago

More specifically, progressives would have to actually turn the fuck out for those progressives at the primaries.

Bernie can tell you counting on that is counting on pigs flying.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Bernie's strategy to victory was turning out a huge number of young people and disaffected non voters. He lamented in the last months of his campaign that he wasn't getting the numbers he needed.

It's so much easier to blame the corrupt DNC than to recognize we need to work on turnout and a broadened message. It should be obvious after 2016 that the virtue of a righteous message is not enough on its own to get a following.

A platform of legal weed, free college, free healthcare, and student loan forgiveness couldn't even achieve a 75% turnout of young voters -- and I say that as someone who was mid 20s in 2020. You could hardly imagine a better platform for young people. There needs to be a much, much better ground game for progressives to win.

[-] lukecooperatus@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Bernie wasn't on the ballot though, because he got fucked out of the opportunity. Of course the people who were incredibly motivated to vote for him didn't show up when they were denied the opportunity to vote for him. That's not a failure of Bernie's message, that's a failure of the establishment to embrace a message that motivates young and disaffected voters.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

He was certainly on the ballot in the primaries.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Which, Biden is broadly popular?

Lol.

[-] 24_at_the_withers@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

He sure as hell was at my (very close to national average demographics district's) caucus in 2020. Damn near the whole room lined up for Biden nearly instantly. It was the same for Hillary in 2016, btw. These lies people like to repeat on the internet about how one progressive or another has overwhelming support and only loses out due to manipulation by the democratic party are not borne or by reality, and I think are often spread by those trying to either disenfranchise left voters, or are the voters that fell for it and are now doing the dirty work of repeating the lies.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sorry, but you give people free food, they’ll show up and cheer for any one. Hell. May not even need to bribe them with food.

Also it’s not 2020, and I wonder how many people are okay with his support of Israel’s genocide? Or his track record on climate.

Biden is not broadly popular, and you’re telling the same lies you’re accusing others. Biden is broadly tolerated- and as always been merely tolerated.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Or his track record on climate.

Biden signed the most significant climate legislation in American history.

You lose elections because your beliefs are fringe.

[-] Goferking0@ttrpg.network 30 points 1 year ago

The issue is they'd rather have another republican than an actual progressive

[-] Poggervania@kbin.social 35 points 1 year ago

See: Al Gore vs Bush

Also, still miffed about Bernie not being a “good candidate” for the DNC in 2016.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 25 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Gore won. He just fucked up by playing by the rules back when people thought that mattered. The brooks brother rioters knew better, and the right wing court put the fix in.

Also, not to be a pill, but nader took a small percentage of the votes in Florida in that election as a progressive. Most of those probally would have gone to Gore, making the bullshit soft coup the GOP pulled off impossible if he wasn't in the race.

First past the post means vote for the lesser evil and pressure the fuck out of them to get the system changed. Thats it. The system doesn't let anything else work.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

Nader didn't just take a small percentage, he deliberately targeted swing states to sabotage Gore for stepping on the Green Party's turf by running on climate issues.

Literally the green party exists today because they refused to let the usual process 3rd parties swear is the actual reason they exist play out, and let the major party that is closest to them adopt their policies.

And you can see that "fuck you this is my shit!" mentality to a certain degree among modern NoVote "progressives", it isn't enough if Biden literally delivers on everything Bernie said he would and more, because he's "the DNC" and he's not Bernie so it's obviously not good enough and you should still refuse to vote for him.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

it isn’t enough if Biden literally delivers on everything Bernie said he would and more, because he’s “the DNC” and he’s not Bernie so it’s obviously not good enough and you should still refuse to vote for him.

i'm torn between jill stein and cornel west, but if dark brandon returns and actually accomplishes this, i will vote for him. tell your boy to get to work.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To add in, the court didn't have the authority to intervene. Congress is supposed to decide elections that are tied or otherwise in doubt.

And didn't Gore actually win the recount after all was said and done?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

And didn’t Gore actually win the recount after all was said and done?

Yes but he conceded before then.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Concessions don't have legal force. The legal force is the state secretary. Or SCOTUS giving itself power.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Right but everything moved forward once he conceded.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Nope he conceded on December 13. They day after SCOTUS overruled the state supreme court and every federal court under them.

[-] rayyy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

nader took a small percentage of the votes in Florida in that election as a progressive. Most of those probally would have gone to Gore

Absolutely! Steve "three-shirts" Bannon and wealthy conservatives are trying their best to dilute the Biden vote by encouraging/financing RFK, Jill Stein, West and the No Labels party

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Fucking Gore couldnt even win his own home state, a state that overwhelmingly vote Clinton both times. Had he been able to do that he wouldnt have needed Florida.

And what is it with liberals always blaming the 3% that vote 3rd party, and never the 15+% of Democrats that flipped party?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Simple reason is more people who vote Democrat disagree with you than agree with you in terms of policy.

Your two options are "convince more people to share my views" or "complain online"

[-] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 5 points 1 year ago

Because Harris would then become the default nominee and Biden knows she can't win. It's either that or a punishing primary resulting in some other nominee, but who would that be? Could they beat Trump? It would be a big gamble. Biden running for a 2nd term is a gamble too, but it probably is the safer bet. His real mistake was having someone as unpopular as Harris as a VP.

I think he would be happy to hand it off to her if he thought she could win.

I also think that it didn't occur to Biden that Trump would still be viable after being defeated in 2020, but of course, like many of us, he underestimated both the cowardice of most Republican leaders and the depravity of Trump's base.

[-] EnderMB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Do you think people actually want a progressive candidate?

The term "you get the politicians you deserve" is often correct, regardless of country and culture.

EDIT: Downvotes? I thought this place was better than Reddit... If you disagree, please highlight how the demand for progressive policies has been shown by the electorate...

this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
388 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19246 readers
2429 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS