Political Discussion and Commentary
A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!
The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.
Content Rules:
- Self posts preferred.
- Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
- No spam or self promotion.
- Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.
Commentary Rules
- Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
- Stay on topic.
- Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
- Provide credible sources whenever possible.
- Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
- Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
- Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).
Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.
Partnered Communities:
• Politics
• Science
view the rest of the comments
I'll only believe a leftist could win an election for president AFTER a leftist wins an election for governor.
Was Senator good enough or nah?
Why? Are leftists not capable of winning governorships too?
Just seems pretty arbitrary and an easy goalpost to move. If they had a governorship and not a Senator, you could just as easily say "I won't believe it until they can win a Senate seat!" instead lol.
Good thing it literally doesn't matter what you believe they can do
Governors, like presidents, are part of the executive branch. So I think it is the more appropriate comparison.
The leading contenders for the 2028 Democratic nomination aren't a mystery. They are mostly governors, for example Newsom, Pritzker, Shapiro, Beshear. There isn't some unknown leftist walking among us who is going to come out of nowhere to win the primary.
All these Sanders supporters talking about the establishment as the reason he doesn't win. Yet none of them voted in the primaries this year. None of them wrote him in for president. Sanders won't win because instead of going to the polls and actually voting for him, his supporters will post on the Internet about wishing they could go to the polls to vote for him.
.... dude. The primary between Biden, the magic crystals lady, and some no name executive?? I did vote in it, and I also knew it was a total sham. What primary did Kamala Harris win? Oh right, not a single one... how can we possibly act surprised that a candidate did not win in a general election when they never even won a primary in their own party?
The Democrat party has not held a valid and legitimate primary since 2008. Super-delegates that are literally pre-pledged to the elites' chosen candidate is not valid democracy. Holding a primary in stages where specific states go first and sway and influence other states that go later is not valid democracy. You're not going to win at democracy if you don't even do democracy.
The alternative is to hold all primaries at once, which costs candidates a lot more money. It would basically exclude any candidate who did not have significant establishment support from the moment they annouced and/or is not a billionaire.
If you want a non-establishment candidate to have any chance, you must give them the opportunity to prove themselves in a small contest, like Iowa, and allow them time to build up momentum.
Okay, I guess just keep losing then?
Democrats have won the presidency roughly half the time over the past 30 years.
Okay, great, clearly zero self-reflection and change is needed then!
There is always room for reflection and self-improvement.
Reflecting on past Democratic wins for the presidency, governorships, and Congress suggests that centrism is often an asset. If anything, the relative lack of victories for leftist candidates should prompt self-reflection.
The following paragraph:
"I've reflected and we are doing everything right! Our current strategy is an asset and not obviously the reason we failed!!!! Progressives are the ones that need to self reflect!!!!"
Lmao
No, I don't think we are doing everything right. Like I said, there is always room for improvement. But that doesn't necessarily mean we need an ideological shift to the left.
For example, we need to bring back Latino voters. I don't think embracing leftism is the best way to do that.
Alright, well since you explicitly believe that you shouldn't embrace progressives, don't be complaining or blaming progressives for not showing up in the polls to vote for your nominees. That scapegoat is officially off the table as a finger-pointing option 🙂
The closest Democrats got to embracing progressives was nominating Biden. It didn't really work out.
Biden? Progressive? Now this is just delusional...
Is climate change legislation progressive?
Is student debt relief progressive?
Is UBI progressive?
Biden enacted versions of all of those, and was more pro-union and pro-LGBTQ than Clinton or Obama or Carter.
But you've kind of proven my point. Progressives won't vote for someone who enacts some progressive policies, even if it's more than any other recent president. Progressives demand someone who gives them everything they want.
For years, all Democrats heard from progressives was "Not enough debt relief" or "You call that UBI?" And of course, "He still hasn't earned my vote". On top of that, progressives get very jealous when Democrats also try to please centrists. As though Democrats have to pass a purity test rather than try to maximize their votes.
I do not expect the next Democratic candidate to even bother with student debt relief. I think the lesson that Democrats will learn is that it is almost impossible to "earn the vote" of progressives. They will always give up on you.
Compare the success of progressives to, say, NRA supporters. Have you ever heard an NRA supporter say, "The GOP still hasn't earned my vote"?
Inform me on Biden's support of UBI that you are referencing...
Honest question: Do you expect the next Democratic candidate to win?
Biden’s Stimulus Plan Contains an Experiment in Universal Basic Income
I don't know. It depends on whether Trump screws the pooch for most Americans. I definitely think he will, so I think Democrats have a decent chance to win.
But I think there is a more important question for progressives. It's easy to criticize and browbeat Democrats, but that doesn't help pass progressive policy. It actually makes Democrats turn away from progressives and look for easier-to-please voters. And maybe they lose once more, but again: how does that help progressives?
I think progressives could take some hints from their opponents on the right. Anti-abortionists and gun nuts are fanatically loyal to the GOP. There is no question whether they will vote GOP in 2028 or 2032 or 2036.
And they are very patient. Anti-abortionists set Dobbs into motion thirty years ago! They don't care that Trump used to be pro-choice and didn't really want condemn abortion this year and has probably paid for an abortion or three. Over time, the GOP has rewarded them more than any other interest group.
In the end, parties reward loyalty. Not threats to stay home on election day.
The one-time $1400 payments following covid and a child tax credit is UBI? Oh, so you're just being disingenuous...
I think what you need to realize is that the Democrats genuinely need progressive votes in order to win, period. You do not have the numbers, otherwise. The progressives do not need Democrats in order to continue losing, they already are losing either way in a first-past-the-post voting system. That is just reality. You can forsake them and instead try to embrace "centrists", but you'll just lose, like 2016 and 2024.
You're also describing the "centrists" that Democrats waste their time courting...
Just as I predicted!
The point is that they do not need a progressive candidate to win. Bill Clinton and Obama weren't progressive, after all.
...well, enjoy losing...😊
It wasn't a losing strategy in the past.
The key for Democrats is to realize that "progressivism" is impossibly broad. So there is no way to deliver on that promise.
However, a candidate who does not identify as "progressive" can still deliver specific promises to progressives. Say, a carbon tax and a trans rights law. And that's it.
For a progressives who care about climate and/or trans rights, that might be enough to vote for the Democrat. Sure, they aren't promising UBI or student debt relief or housing or a minimum wage hike. Maybe the other things in their platform are aimed at Latinos and liberals.
But if you actually care about trans rights, why not vote for the Democrat who will deliver that instead of the Republican who offers nothing or the Green who can't deliver anything?
I think there might be enough progressives who really do care about trans rights and/or climate to make up for losing the ones who only care about UBI. And I think Democrats don't need every last progressive voter to win.
Yep.
You should ask yourself why you're trying to get away with not delivering things that progressives want, or why you're trying to deliver just enough things to coax their votes, but nothing more. Like, do you hear yourself?
You think this is actually occurring in real life? They're just not voting. And Republicans vote in enough numbers to beat the Democrat base every single time.
"We can win without a progressive candidate, but the only Democrat candidate who has won in recent history is Biden, who was actually pretty progressive" Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
I mean if Biden is pretty progressive then I'd argue Obama's 2008 campaign was too on the same scale, so... seems like the only time Democrats have won since basically the cold war was with progressive candidates... 🤷
I'm not doing anything. That's what I think Democrats should do, if they want to win elections. If Democrats promise too much to progressives, they will inevitably disappoint progressives and lose their support.
Obama did exactly what I'm suggesting.
He campaigned not as a progressive, but as someone who would appeal to centrists and even conservatives in order to bring unity. He made just one major promise to progressives, health care reform. For many of them, that was enough. He delivered, by signing a fairly centrist version without a public option. It was derided at the time by leftists but they got over it.
Then he put most of his energy into futile attempts at bipartisanship, hunting down bin Laden, drone strikes, and trying to ignore another major progressive issue, gay marriage.
He was a huge success! Even today he is widely admired. I think future Democrats will try to emulate him.
Yes, start locally and regionally then go up to nationally. This is the way.
not even sanders who is pretty tame as far as leftism go is sabotaged and not allowed to even compete.
the system itself is broken.
Does FDR count?
If FDR counts then so does Biden