695

Democratic political strategy

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Cenotaph@mander.xyz 115 points 4 days ago

Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.

[-] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 74 points 4 days ago

"Why isn't anybody voting for us"

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 53 points 4 days ago

I think the question they ask is more like "why are people voting for the other side?" ...leading to "we need to be more like them"

[-] jewbacca117@lemmy.world 24 points 4 days ago

The problem is theres nothing on our side. Our choices are right of center and so far right they fell off the graph.

[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

There's also the choice of doing what Bernie did, and build up an alternative from the local level, but that would require people to realise that politics aren't restricted to TV-level races nor snooze for 4 years.

If Americans did that in large scale they could to the democratic party the reverse of what the tea party did to the republican party.

[-] jewbacca117@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

The Democratic party hates Bernie though. Theyran so hard against him back in '16 and '20. I swear the Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than run an actual left candidate.

[-] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 3 days ago

That's because there are only a handful of "Bernies". A party is not a monolithical block, it's the sum of it's members, and the centrists end up being in charge because they are the ones that end up representing the party at most levels. If you want to shift the balance you need leftists to run for school boards, and city halls, and build from there by starting taking over the state committees and DNC members elected by each state (which in turn control the DNC).

If even the most extreme of the extreme right managed to do it in the republican party, there's no reason why a moderate left movement couldn't do it in the democratic party - if anything I would expect it to be easier.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Thwompthwomp@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

The democrats are still at their core a liberal party, and ultimately running a left candidate would be against their interests.

What’s really frustrating is the Dems just dont seem to have any vision of what they want. They clearly don’t want the dystopia of the Trump party, but aren’t really offering a vision of something different or a way things ought to be. (And they won’t be able to as long as they are trying to cater to workers as well as the Wall Street class at the same time.)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 39 points 4 days ago

The rightward shift of the GOP and the tendency of the seemingly infinite number of spineless Dem careerist politicians to seek compromise is very real, but please remember the 90s and 2000s, everyone. They were not as rosy and left-wing as you remember; while not nearly enough, the Dems are notably more left than they were then.

[-] USNWoodwork@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago

This fails to recognize that for a very long time things trended left. I remember talking to someone in the 90s and we went down a list of major issues and the left had essentially won on all of them. Roe vs Wade EPA Gay Marriage Welfare Reform and Child Tax Credits

My hope for the Democratic party is that they go to a single issue for the next National election, and that issue should be Anti-trust/Breaking up monopolies

[-] brianary@startrek.website 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's an important issue, but if Democrats ever see power again, it'll be important to focus on re-enfranchisement (RCV, instant runoff, or anything fairer than FPTP; NPVIC; national mail voting; mandatory voting), on judicial reform to undo the corruption and incompetence that has been packed there. Without those, keeping any gains will be impossible.

Then, triaging existential threats is critical, which will mean fighting climate change, investing in public transport (trains), and breaking up trusts will have to be pursued simultaneously. Stopping any support for genocide needs to happen as soon as possible.

There will be plenty more structural changes to fix beyond that: Protecting whistleblowers and protesters, improving FOIA, replacing norms with laws (Emoluments Clause enforcement, financial records disclosure, no insider trading for Congressmembers, &c), and all manner of civil rights protections and police reform.

After all that, it'll be time for the stuff I've been hoping for: nationalizing healthcare and Internet access, and copyright reform.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Turret3857@infosec.pub 3 points 3 days ago

Things should be progressing no? that's the whole point of being the "progressive party"

[-] EnderMB@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

You'd need to explain how this helps the average person.

Bearing in mind that these employers have hundreds of thousands of people working for them, you would need to somehow ensure that people aren't voting for a spike in unemployment.

FWIW I don't disagree at all, but how would this be implemented in practice, and how would it be framed as a good thing for those employed by those companies?

[-] Zier@fedia.io 30 points 4 days ago

Always reach across the isle and punch nazis.

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 4 days ago
[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 7 points 3 days ago

not saying i disagree, but people always link this article as though it even has a section on partisan politics. it doesn’t, or really even pose any evidence that suggests the effect applies to the overton window. would be curious if there are any sources that pose evidence.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

i just read it and don't think it applies here. the effect seems to apply to situations where the movement in one direction perpetuates itself, due to cyclic nature or outside influences.

if the democratic party wanted to, they could totally pull the overton window to the left. it's not like there's a perpetual demanded for the democratic party to move to the right; they just want to do it.

[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago

The Overton Window is set in an abandoned lot. The house burned down a long time ago.

[-] madjo@feddit.nl 6 points 3 days ago

This could mean that there’s room on the left for a brand new party.

[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

Only if America will implement proportional representation

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 days ago

It could if we weren't locked into a two party system.

[-] madjo@feddit.nl 6 points 3 days ago

I mean, if there ever was a time for a grass roots growing of a third party, it would be NOW, not a year before the election with Putin-stooge Jill Stein.

[-] MisterFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Yes, but please voting reform at the same time. I do not enjoy this rollercoaster where we vassals of the US cross our fingers and hope the nut jobs don't get into power.

And then they do.

Please for the love of God, make voting reform the number one issue above all else, because it affects all else.

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

I can agree with that, but I'm not sure it will happen. And like most people I'm too busy trying to keep a non-negative balance in the checkbook to do much about it.

[-] Turret3857@infosec.pub 4 points 3 days ago

There are plenty of people trying but it is clearly not working

[-] prototact@programming.dev 12 points 3 days ago

Frankly the people are the ones moving further to the right because the state does not educate them and regulate corporate power, transforming the public into a myopic panicked herd.

[-] wpb@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago

That's actually false. When it comes to policy preferences, the actual electorate swings pretty far left compared to the right wing and far right parties they can choose between. Universal health care, parental leave, paid sick leave, higher minimum wage all enjoy broad and firm popular support, and neither party is even talking about this.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 5 points 3 days ago

!! yea

always important to remember that the electorate’s preference in policy has only a loose relationship to who they vote for. this air gap is where most elections are fought, where strong messaging tightens the gap and messaging failures loosen it. the 2024 presidential election had a hella loose connection between party and people.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] prototact@programming.dev 2 points 3 days ago

If you read this study, it mentions people are prone to affective polarization, that is a state of mind that is in itself extreme and it's related to people being myopic, that is governed by strong emotions such as panic instead of choosing rationally.

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

I'll be honest, I didn't read the whole thing. But I did try to find a section supporting what you say, and sure, it talks about affective polarization, but it doesn't show anywhere that this leads to people voting irrationally in the sense of voting against their own material interests, as far as I can see. Is there any section you're referring to specifically?

[-] prototact@programming.dev 1 points 2 days ago

The rise in economic inequality in the United States appeared to be causing congressional ideological polarization—but congressional ideological polarization was also leading to increases in inequality, so causality was a vicious circle. Nolan McCarty, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal found in 2007 that inequality exacerbated ideological polarization, and ideological polarization led to policies that further increased inequality. In other words, they found that people with vastly differential wealth had different policy preferences. But ideological differences between Republican and Democratic partisans led to the failure of redistributive policies, thus exacerbating inequality.

Basically, economic inequality leads to elite polarization (at the congress level) that limits the political agenda to policies that do not benefit the public, so that the public can only vote against its interest. This leads to more economic inequality and so forth. There are more layers to it, such as economic inequality creating elites in the private sector and leaving politics to incompetent people that are manipulated by the business elite. My initial description is somewhat simplistic, but essentially the public is cut off from the elite due to economic inequality, leading to political polarization as the only differentiating factor in policy, so that the public can only vote against its interest.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 17 points 4 days ago

just playin' the long game. won't be long now and it will loop around to the far left.

[-] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago

So, everyone's hoping for the bit overflow

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 17 points 4 days ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kittenzrulz123 19 points 4 days ago

Yup, we just need to accelerate and we totally won't end up in a fascist dystopia

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago

Remember back in the past, when Democrats were communists and Republicans were social Democrats? Oh wait, that never happened, this graph is nonsense

[-] frazw@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

This is recent history, not all history, and FYI it is a meme not a scientific study.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 5 points 3 days ago

/genuine question, asides from the obvious of republicans adopting left policy, what would have to happen for another party switch to occur?

like, i know it happened once. wondering what circumstances and context brought that about and if that’s even a realistic framing to think about today’s world?

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago

There is also the Whig party for reference. They were one of the two parties until they refused to take a meaningful stance on slavery. They were the 'bipartisanship states rights solves it' party versus the 'pro-slavery' party.

There is no longer a Whig party and the slavery party went to war over a decade or so after the anti slavery parry formed.

So there's that alternative to Party switch.

[-] NABDad@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

I agree. I think we're at the stage where the Democrats are the Whig party. They aren't going to change, they need to be replaced with a true progressive party.

Assuming that we continue to be as much of a democracy as we were, now might be the time for that replacement to happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
695 points (100.0% liked)

Political Memes

5473 readers
2299 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes 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 misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS