this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
48 points (87.5% liked)

politics

19047 readers
4687 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 51 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

Progressives. Targeting moderates is often viewed as the "mathematically correct" tactic by abstract idiots but doing moderate stuff doesn't yield political wins and leads to apathy.

Democrats have a lot of deactivated voters because of how deeply frustratingly moderate they are that outweigh the centrists they're fighting for - additionally if you start making big policy wins you'll win over all sorts of voters... Just as a fucking reminder Republican voters were more favorable of Sanders than Clinton because he had policy ideas that actually would improve their lives.

American politics is a morass of bullshit - when you offer to cut through that (Obama, Sanders, (bleh) Trump) and deliver real improvements to people's daily lives you win.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 17 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

The problem isn't even moderates it's the out right conservatives in the DNC. Actual progressives in the party are a dying breed these days with the overwhelming majority being moderates and yet somehow the most conservative members are the ones that keep steering the policy decisions. Kamala is a conservative. Biden is a conservative. Tim Walz is barely a moderate. The DNC of today looks like the RNC of the 90s and that's not a good thing. Even Obama was a moderate and he's the most progressive presidential candidate I've seen the DNC run in at least three decades if not more.

[–] MajinBlayze@lemmy.world 12 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

The border "crisis" is the perfect example of this: biden's policy on the Mexican border would make w blush.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de -2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

I don’t know if it’s true, but I wish it were.

However, some of the more annoying Bernie Bros were there to sow division, not because they liked the ideas necessarily. I personally know multiple supporters that have MAGA flags now.

It’s kinda similar to how Dems “backed” Trump in the 2016 primaries because they thought he’d be easier to beat in the general.

[–] sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

I cannot beleive you know several who supported Bernie could be flying a maga flag now. It sounds like you just happen to know a group of lying maga jerks. You claim you "know them personally". How did you end up as close personal friends with a bunch of maga jerks? I dont know a single one except an uncle the family openly jokes about. They say if you want to know who you are, look at yiur friends. You're the average of your friends.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 17 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

It seems to me that most moderates aren’t moderate because they’re passionately committed to a particular set of moderate policies—they’re moderate because they prioritize other qualities (like charisma, enthusiasm, and competence) over ideology. So the most effective way to win them isn’t by adopting a moderate ideology, but by demonstrating you have the non-ideological qualities they actually care about.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 5 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (9 children)

Right now, progressives are the ones saying "Democrats have failed and I cannot vote for them" and moderates are the ones saying "I've never voted for Democrats before, but this year I will." This was true even before the Gaza invasion.

When someone tells you their voting intentions, believe them. Unfortunately, Democrats have no choice but to prioritize moderates.

[–] Just_Pizza_Crust@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

If that's the case then there should be no argument from Dems about leftists voting third party in swing states.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 7 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Democrats argue with Trump supporters all the time, I see no reason why third party voters should get a pass. Especially when those two groups have so much in common.

[–] sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Progressive voter intentions are to pressure the Harris campaign to stop the flow of weapons. If she did that she'd have her progressive vote. Progressive leadership climbed in with the Harris campaign early with endorsements. But you'll notice that AOC has had enough of being ignored and is now unloading on Harris. Progressives wont simply blindly support an AIPAC hand puppet like centrists will.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 28 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

How'd trying to go after moderates work for Hillary. Secure your base first or they'll stay home on election day.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 19 points 17 hours ago

Progressive voters, moderate donors.

At least, that's the plan.

What happens is you can't appeal to both well.

Let's get oligarchs money out of politics please.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 17 hours ago

Should prioritize progressives, but won't.

[–] Just_Pizza_Crust@lemmy.world 13 points 18 hours ago

We cannot continue to rely on fear to propel turnout. Fear and anxiety lead to paralysis and electoral withdrawal. Arguing “We’re not going to hurt you like they are” is no longer sufficient.

This has been such a massive failure on the Dems part, especially after seeing the excitement that Tim Waltz was able to generate after joining the race. I can't stand to watch a Kamala rally or speech nowadays because it's nothing but Trump fearmongering, and I don't even know which parts are real worries considering the guy couldn't even build a fucking wall.

It even backfires a bit too, because now I think more about how her office is going to come after our civil liberties. Obama created mass surveillance programs and went after whistleblowers, so what is her office inevitably going to do?

[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I think progressives tend to overestimate their numbers. Maybe Millennials and Gen z are moving the needle a little further to the left, but I don't think it's as much as many progressives want to believe. There are many millions of Americans under 40 who are moderate, center right, or right wing. The US in general is further right than most other democracies, I would say. In fact, I think the US overall is center to center right. For this reason, I think it is generally a losing strategy for the Democrats to prioritize progressive policies, especially in the presidential election.

Most progressives live in deep blue states; states that are going to go for the Democrats regardless. Whereas, the states that matter, the swing states/purple states are much more moderate. Those are the states the Democrats have to focus on, because of how our election system works. For this reason alone, it makes more sense for Democrats to try and court moderates, at least in the presidential election. But, it's probably true of Congress as well. I think moderate candidates do better in most states and congressional districts than progressive candidates.

It brings me no joy saying this. I'm politically left, I would estimate further left than the majority of Americans. I have been advocating for radical changes for years, but it's mostly fallen on deaf ears, and some of my fellow Americans have been aggressively hostile to the ideas I've been advocating for. Americans, generally, like capitalism, they like class hierarchies, and hierarchies in general, because they believe that some people are just inherently superior to others, and that doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 14 points 19 hours ago (7 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 18 hours ago (5 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 18 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 17 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 16 hours ago

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

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 9 points 18 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 18 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 18 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 18 hours ago (5 children)

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

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 5 points 17 hours ago

Gay marriage,

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

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 4 points 18 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 17 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 16 hours ago

I need to get better at reading usernames

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 12 points 18 hours ago

Progressives aren't the majority, but there's enough of them that democrats can't win without them.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 7 points 11 hours ago

I understand the progressive wing’s frustration with the slow pace of change within the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, such massive shifts in public opinion and policy can take longer than one wishes.

Oh, the public opinion has shifted. Has been shifted for years. It's the party that can't seem to shift.

load more comments
view more: next ›