The leaders of the Democratic National Committee announced they plan to learn absolutely nothing from their embarrassing loss to President-elect Donald Trump.
Yep, every time Dems can’t get enough votes from the left to win, because they aren’t “left/pure enough” for them, what they learn is to shift to the right to find votes.
Whereas since voters on the right will always vote for the one with the R by their name even if they don’t think the candidate is “right enough”, their party learns that it doesn’t have to move to the left to find enough votes and stays to the right or moves even further to the right.
…the funny counterpart is that when liberals run a full-throated embrace of populism, their greatest threat isn’t the surge of new progressive supporters, but establishment democrats desperately afraid of losing conservatives who’d never support them anyway…
I don’t think you understand their point. Republicans always turn out to vote for their candidate. Then they win (at least a good portion of the time) and they vote in primaries and move the party further right. For any evidence just look at the past 2 decades.
Whereas the left just decides to sit out and therefore Dems lose (or only win at odd times.) They can’t count on leftist/apathetic voters, so they go towards where they think they can get votes (ie. people who always vote and if they do convert enough they are profiting by gaining one vote for them and removing one from Republicans.)
Now everyone here is saying it’s soooo obvious that it’s a poor strategy but is there any introspection on behalf of the left/apathetic? How has withholding your vote or not voting in primaries gone? It’s been done for years and society has moved so, so far away from leftist goals no?
So their point is that it probably is a mix- surely the Dems need to actually run on popular policy and leftists/apathetic need to suck it up, vote in all elections, and vote for the best candidate. Pick your preferred candidate in the primary and then vote for the Democratic candidate in the general, no matter what (well- barring something egregious like…being anything like Trump.) Once Dems actually have power, you can keep pushing left. But if people just sit out, you’re not gonna be counted. Decades of that is proof.
Edit- maybe you mean you can’t win the center over with conservatism-lite. Maybe that’s true, maybe not. But someone mentioned Bernie finished behind Harris in Vermont so I don’t know that it’s a maxim.
Mindless sheep sycophant party that abuses the system to stay relivent VS super-diverse big tent party than “takes the high road” and it is still almost 50/50…tells you where the people actually stand and how badly the broken system empowers the shitty minority. Oh, before “huurrrrddduuuurrrrr but popular vote dduuurrrrrrr”…that is how many people of each ideology VOTED not how many there are. Glad I could clarify the obvious for you smooth brain twits that think you have a point.
The popular vote that trump won in addition to the electoral college? That popular vote? Democrats (the party apparatus) need to come to term with themselves and look in the mirror for answers as to why there’s a second trump term on the horizon.
Yep, every time Dems can’t get enough votes from the left to win, because they aren’t “left/pure enough” for them, what they learn is to shift to the right to find votes.
And can you blame them? Who do you think is more efficient catering to, the right-wing idiot who went to vote for a rapist felon or the self-proclaimed leftist that didn’t vote to stop fascism because they didn’t like the alternative enough?
These last elections were already “right vs far right”, following ones are 100% going to be even worse. When the right wins, shifting left makes no logical sense.
No of course I can’t blame them because it’s the only thing that makes sense to do. That’s what I saying. I blame the people who won’t vote for Dems if they don’t perfectly align with everything they want or don’t pass their purity test.
Magats took over the Republican party because they consistently voted for whichever R won the primary, even if it wasn’t the one they wanted to win the primary. R’s have always done this, but Magats especially have been turning out to do this since 2008 when gasp! the Black guy won (they started out as the Tea party). On top of that they did a lot of activism. Parading around with their guns was the part they liked best about that. They took a name for their movement; the TEA (taxed enough already) party was a stupid name and they looked like idiots with their teabags, but it worked for them and they eventually got their demagogue.
The Democratic party can be moved to the left with this same strategy. Vote for the more left-leaning or whoever you like best in the primary, then vote for whoever has the D by their name in the general. When they learn that they can actually count on getting enough votes from their base, they’ll stop futilely chasing votes from the right. At the same time you have to do activism and keep the movement growing, which makes sure they clearly know what you want and creates pressure to influence their policies. You don’t give up after one election cycle because it takes time and work…
Ceding your power by not voting doesn’t make politicians care about you–it’s not like boycotting a business that wants to sell you something. Politicians want to please those who vote for them, not those who don’t. Learn from the magats. First you put the politicians closer to your views into power, then keep pressuring them to enact the policies you want. Not sit around and wait for them to enact the agenda you want first and after that you’ll vote for them. Think about how training a dog works.
Yep, every time Dems can’t get enough votes from the left to win, because they aren’t “left/pure enough” for them, what they learn is to shift to the right to find votes.
Whereas since voters on the right will always vote for the one with the R by their name even if they don’t think the candidate is “right enough”, their party learns that it doesn’t have to move to the left to find enough votes and stays to the right or moves even further to the right.
…you don’t win over conservatives by offering light-conservatism, but the democratic party have run the same playbook since 1992…
The only way to win over conservatives is a full-throated embrace of fascism. Turns them out like crazy.
…the funny counterpart is that when liberals run a full-throated embrace of populism, their greatest threat isn’t the surge of new progressive supporters, but establishment democrats desperately afraid of losing conservatives who’d never support them anyway…
I don’t think you understand their point. Republicans always turn out to vote for their candidate. Then they win (at least a good portion of the time) and they vote in primaries and move the party further right. For any evidence just look at the past 2 decades.
Whereas the left just decides to sit out and therefore Dems lose (or only win at odd times.) They can’t count on leftist/apathetic voters, so they go towards where they think they can get votes (ie. people who always vote and if they do convert enough they are profiting by gaining one vote for them and removing one from Republicans.)
Now everyone here is saying it’s soooo obvious that it’s a poor strategy but is there any introspection on behalf of the left/apathetic? How has withholding your vote or not voting in primaries gone? It’s been done for years and society has moved so, so far away from leftist goals no?
So their point is that it probably is a mix- surely the Dems need to actually run on popular policy and leftists/apathetic need to suck it up, vote in all elections, and vote for the best candidate. Pick your preferred candidate in the primary and then vote for the Democratic candidate in the general, no matter what (well- barring something egregious like…being anything like Trump.) Once Dems actually have power, you can keep pushing left. But if people just sit out, you’re not gonna be counted. Decades of that is proof.
Edit- maybe you mean you can’t win the center over with conservatism-lite. Maybe that’s true, maybe not. But someone mentioned Bernie finished behind Harris in Vermont so I don’t know that it’s a maxim.
Ever wonder why that’s the case?
Mindless sheep sycophant party that abuses the system to stay relivent VS super-diverse big tent party than “takes the high road” and it is still almost 50/50…tells you where the people actually stand and how badly the broken system empowers the shitty minority. Oh, before “huurrrrddduuuurrrrr but popular vote dduuurrrrrrr”…that is how many people of each ideology VOTED not how many there are. Glad I could clarify the obvious for you smooth brain twits that think you have a point.
The popular vote that trump won in addition to the electoral college? That popular vote? Democrats (the party apparatus) need to come to term with themselves and look in the mirror for answers as to why there’s a second trump term on the horizon.
Read, comprehend, then speak.
And can you blame them? Who do you think is more efficient catering to, the right-wing idiot who went to vote for a rapist felon or the self-proclaimed leftist that didn’t vote to stop fascism because they didn’t like the alternative enough?
These last elections were already “right vs far right”, following ones are 100% going to be even worse. When the right wins, shifting left makes no logical sense.
No of course I can’t blame them because it’s the only thing that makes sense to do. That’s what I saying. I blame the people who won’t vote for Dems if they don’t perfectly align with everything they want or don’t pass their purity test.
Magats took over the Republican party because they consistently voted for whichever R won the primary, even if it wasn’t the one they wanted to win the primary. R’s have always done this, but Magats especially have been turning out to do this since 2008 when gasp! the Black guy won (they started out as the Tea party). On top of that they did a lot of activism. Parading around with their guns was the part they liked best about that. They took a name for their movement; the TEA (taxed enough already) party was a stupid name and they looked like idiots with their teabags, but it worked for them and they eventually got their demagogue.
The Democratic party can be moved to the left with this same strategy. Vote for the more left-leaning or whoever you like best in the primary, then vote for whoever has the D by their name in the general. When they learn that they can actually count on getting enough votes from their base, they’ll stop futilely chasing votes from the right. At the same time you have to do activism and keep the movement growing, which makes sure they clearly know what you want and creates pressure to influence their policies. You don’t give up after one election cycle because it takes time and work…
Ceding your power by not voting doesn’t make politicians care about you–it’s not like boycotting a business that wants to sell you something. Politicians want to please those who vote for them, not those who don’t. Learn from the magats. First you put the politicians closer to your views into power, then keep pressuring them to enact the policies you want. Not sit around and wait for them to enact the agenda you want first and after that you’ll vote for them. Think about how training a dog works.
However, I’ve been doing this forever- and the Dems just keep moving further right.
I mean, you have but clearly a ton haven’t. Witness the millions of missing votes this election.
You deserve kudos for this. Very well put.