this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
47 points (87.3% liked)

politics

19047 readers
4528 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.
  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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 14 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

There's a theory called the Overton Window and Dems moving to the center has shifted this whole country to the right. We lost abortion rights because of it and our election integrity and voter access is at risk because of it.

If you want to look at a winning strategy that directly refutes your point look at FDR.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt,_third_and_fourth_terms

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

The Overton window is happening because 1/3 of the country doesn't vote. Repubs are still able to take elections despite a majority of Americans opposing their policies. If it were impossible for the further right party to win, both parties would shift left.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 15 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Low voter turnout is a voter access and apathy issue. Disenfranchised voters tend to not vote and that's a platform and outreach issue for the DNC. Low voter access is shit that elected dems should put first and foremost in their agenda once elected, but only Abrams and Sanders have talked about election reform since Carter was president.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 12 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The apathy is directly tied to the DNC pushing conservative and moderate policies instead of progressive ones. When voters see so little difference between the two parties, where neither party is promising the policies they're looking for, then they see no point in showing up at the polls.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 11 points 14 hours ago

This is my understanding of the problem as well. Moderate dems are selling the party to billionaires

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 9 points 16 hours ago

I wish they would prioritize that. It is a bit of a chicken and egg problem currently. Instead we're losing voter protections from a corrupt SCOTUS, so it is becoming harder to vote overall.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Democrats are not the party responsible for the massive shift in the Overton Window. They didn't do much to stop it, but they weren't driving it.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 9 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

They didn't do much to stop it

And what have they done to stop it?

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Gay marriage, the ACA, the Ledbetter act, more would be better, but they aren't doing nothing.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

Gay marriage,

Let's not give Congress credit for something that the courts did.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Ah, sorry. I thought you were referring to election reform or presidential messaging. Yes, Dems in Congress have been a slight net positive.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I was just jumping into the middle of the conversation. It does look like the other threads were more focused on the presidential level.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

I need to get better at reading usernames

[–] sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Theres so few accomplishments for the centrist Dems that I keep seeing Ledbetter paraded around like it was revolutionary. All Ledbetter was was an extension of the statute of limitations on another law. It should have and could have been more than that.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

None of these things should have been revolutionary, and yet they still needed laws or court cases to make them happen.

If we didn't Republicans trying to drag things backwards and a bunch of idiots finding excuses to not vote for the only other candidate with a chance of winning, things could start to improve.

[–] sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

idiots finding excuses to not vote for the only other candidate with a chance of winning

Some people wont sign on to genocide whether their party will or not. Dont the christians say god over country over party or something like that? These arent idiots, and your saying they are seems a bit petulant. You cant demand the world act like you want it to, unless you are super spoiled rich? You rich, bro?

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

There's a theory called the Overton Window and Dems moving to the center has shifted this whole country to the right.

I don't agree. I don't think Democrats shifted anything, they were just going where the voters were. Democrats have to win elections and that requires getting people to vote for you. The Democrats didn't shift voters to the right, the voters shifted Democrats to the right.

We lost abortion rights because of it

I think abortion rights are a winning issue for Democrats, but not because it's an exclusively progressive policy. I think abortion rights is a very popular policy among moderates.

If you want to look at a winning strategy that directly refutes your point look at FDR.

I'm talking about where American voters are today, not where they were 80 or 90 years ago, and today I think a majority of Americans are politically moderate.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 7 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Buying power and income disparity are at the same levels they were 80-90 years ago.

https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/4/1/18286084/gilded-age-income-inequality-robber-baron

Americans support "progressive" policy when it's not framed as a political question.

https://time.com/6990721/us-politics-polarization-myth/

Lastly, you think Americans were more progressive on average 90 years ago?

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

American's support "progressive" policy when it's not framed as a political question.

That article you linked to supports my point. From the article:

Consider: Ordinary people in both parties turn out to like ordinary people in the other party well enough. In a 2021 study in the Journal of Politics, researchers found that when a person in one political party was asked what they think of someone in the other party, their answer was pretty negative. That certainly sounds like polarization. But it turns out the “someones” respondents had in mind were partisans holding forth on cable news.

If told the truth—that a typical member of the opposite party actually holds moderate views and talks about politics only occasionally—the animus dissolved into indifference. And if told that the same moderate person only rarely discusses politics, the sentiment edged into the positive zone. These folks might actually get along.

“There are people who are certainly polarized,” says Yanna Krupnikov, a study co-author now at the University of Michigan. “They are 100% polarized. They deeply hate the other side. They are extraordinarily loud. They are extraordinarily important in American politics.” But those people, she adds, are not typical Americans. They are people who live and breathe politics—the partisans and activists whom academics refer to in this context as elites.

That hardly recommends today’s politics, and goes a long way toward explaining why many people avoid partisans. “They dislike people who are ­really ideologically extreme, who are very politically invested, who want to come and talk to them about politics,” says Matthew Levendusky, a University of Pennsylvania professor of political science.

But, yes, moderates can, like progressives, want to improve the healthcare system and address climate change. Where they differ is in how they would go about it, and I think most moderates would prefer to go about addressing those issues by making as few radical changes as possible.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

We differ on a salient point I think. You view progressives as radicals.

I don't think what the progressive wing of the party are asking for is radical. Neither does the article I posted.

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

We differ on a salient point I think. You view progressives as radicals.

I really don't, and that's not the point that I'm making at all. I'm saying, the majority of American voters view progressives as radicals. Bernie Sanders and AOC, and any other politician who identifies as a socialist, Democratic or otherwise, as well as politicians who advocate for Medicare for All, a green new deal, etc, are seen by a majority of American voters as radicals. That's what I'm saying.