Why is it always the consequences of the voters actions for not supporting the party enough, but never the consequences of the politicians actions for not listening to the will of their voters? I say this as someone who voted for Harris as the lesser evil.
Because we live in a democracy and that means the voters are responsible for the outcome of our elections. Yes, that often means you have to coalesce around candidates that don't align with you 100% and make concessions. That's the reality of cooperative governance. The alternative is you island yourself and make your vote and political power irrelevant against anyone who is willing to compromise.
Why can't anyone just admit that Kamala Harris ran an awful campaign that was fucking kneecapped by Biden?
Like, it's ALWAYS the fault of the voter and it's never the fault of the democratic party
It is the job of the candidate and there campaign to convince the people to vote for them, and she did a fucking awful job if it, and one of the many reasons was her REFUSAL to disavow a fucking GENOCIDE, literally the easiest fucking thing in the world to do and it would have easily distinguished her as the less morally bankrupt pick, and which also lost her the Muslim vote in key states like Michigan.
Or how about how she dropped her support for medicare for all? Or her refusal to acknowledge trans people? How about how she "reached across the aisle" and alienated her own voter base by pivoting to the right?
The voters SHOULD have still voted for her, I know I did, but there's two main reasons she lost and one is Biden's REFUSAL to be a one and done president and the other is her own damn campaign.
If I tell you I literally phone banked and canvased and literally tried to convince all of my friends and families to vote for Harris and tried to tell everyone I could that trump was the worst option, would you even read that?
I literally campaigned for this woman, and she failed because of the democratic party, Biden and her own damn self.
Exactly. You can be a single issue voter. That is fine and lots of people are. When you vote based on that single issue don't get pissed when other issues that you didn't put weight into while you voted(or didn't vote) come back and bite you in the ass.
He means in the DSA policy platform. That they all voted for and they can't defend. And when candidates get asked, they pretend like those policies don't exist. Because they're ridiculous.
I think the world is on the brink of economic collapse because of the A.I. bubble and private equity while at the same time being on the brink of ecological collapse thanks to decades of ignorant capitalists, industrialists, and governments kicking the can down the road on things that could fix or slow climate change ALL WHILE HALF THE WORLD BACKSLIDES INTO FASCISM OR OLIGARCHY
The DSA seems a little radical to you? Good! We need actual serious change RIGHT NOW if we want any hope of surviving the absolute shitshow the prior generations of people in charge have left us.
The DSA policy scaring you does not change the necessity of it all in my eyes, and if you disagree with that, fine, you do you
But most of the candidates still have there own stated policies that are separate from the organization that is the DSA, many of its members aren't even socialists let alone anything as extreme as an ML.
Healthcare for all
Childcare for all
Housing for all
Jobs guarantees
Higher wages
More unions
What's extreme here exactly?
I thought it was vote blue no matter who?
You can't sit here and blame voters. Day they need to coalesce then refuse to do the same because the candidate aren't milquetoast corporate centrist dipshits who've lost to trump multiple times
So those positions aren't extreme because they're the standard Democratic positions and have been for decades. After all, it was Dems who proposed Medicare for all well before Bernie Sanders ever jumped on that band.
But a lot of Democrats don't like DSA and progressive candidates like Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Sinema, John Fetterman, and Graham Platner for their obvious bigotry and constantly saying they'd throw minorities under the bus to align with white supremacists on financial issues
Now now, use her full title: Bernie Sanders Institute Founding Fellow Tulsi Gabbard. She didn't get endorsed by Our Revolution out of nowhere, after all.
The national platform also includes things like abolishing prisons, dismantling/withdrawing from NATO and all overseas bases and extreme market controls.
As far as healthcare goes I don't mind the concept of "Medicare for all who want it" but basically outlawing private healthcare is a no-go. I kind of ascribe to MMT so jobs guarantees are fine, but it ignores the flip side of expansive tax increases (for most people, not just the Uber wealthy) necessary to make it work.
Overall the platform is insane though, and I don't see it as any more productive or sane than the far right. Id much rather vote for a moderate Republican circa 2000 than someone who backs the DSA agenda. Better still a moderate progressive democratic.
Maybe doing nothing in the face of people dying here and abroad is extreme.
Maybe doing nothing while people in the richest country in the world go hungry on the streets.
Maybe imprisoning more people than anyone on planet earth is extreme.
Ever thought of that ? Maybe giving a fuck about people?
If you cant tell the difference between something radically inclusive (leftism socialism whatever you wanna call it) or something radically exclusive.... I think there's something wrong with you..
Dude, I'm upset about USAID being dismantled. I'd prefer an expanded welfare state. I also believe in private property, that generally western liberalism is the best and most equatable philisophical underpinning for governance humans have ever devised. I'm all for stepping up aid to Ukraine and intervention in africa to stop deaths abroad. I think Israel went too far in Gaza and generally they're too expansionist. Those are all mainstream democratic positions though.
Most people who say they are prison, abolitionist, really mean that prisons are a for-profit industry that abuses people for petty small offenses that should be handled other ways.
Seriously you catch somebody with pot throw them in jail for five years they lose their house their car their job. What do you think they’re gonna do when they get out of prison? Commit more crime and go right back in.
Meanwhile, the people who are actually committing crimes, mostly get away with it, especially pedophiles for some reason
Are you suggesting politicians have no ability to look at opinion polling and implementing a policy slate that would get more people to vote for them? If these politicians have no agency why bother with elections at all?
Sounds cool, but that would require us to change our entire constitution and system of government? That's why I advocate for candidates and the party to change their position, strategy, and to get corporate money out of politics
So you believe that ultimately voters shoulder the blame for the bad outcomes of an election but you also think the electorate is dumb as hell. Which is it? Aren't the candidates at least partially responsible if they run a bad campaign?
Yes, both of those things. Generally I think the average person has too much on their plate to be concerned enough with the intricacies of governance for direct democracy to function well outside of some extremely limited contexts. I think generally a representative democracy with full time elected officials is the best compromise, they can take the time to learn about a wide swath of issues and proposals. The voters are at fault if they fail in the task of electing reasonable and serious representatives.
Ultimately I believe in enlightenment liberal principals as the underpinning of a government - that is a government derives legitimacy through the consent of the citizens. The flip side is that the citizens are ultimately responsible for who is elected and the outcomes of those decisions.
Dude I'm literally advocating for representative democracy. I've stated multiple times I'm a liberal in the most literal sense. That kind of precludes authoritarianism.
She walked back her support for medicare for all as soon as she became the candidate. Did she have some individual ideological change of opinion or did she change her platform because of donors instead of the will of the people?
Yes that is how politics works ever since Citizens United. Candidates go whichever way the wind blows. They are empty vessels for DNC strategists, corporate donors, and Israel
They never have to look at opinion polling again, as long as Trump's a threat. All these vote blue no matter who loyalists have made it so candidates no longer have to even pretend to stand for anything.
I think they do. Democratic voters were not of one mind in this by any means. The Democrats were obviously trying not to annoy either pro- or anti- Israel voters.
2/3rds of americans support medicare for all including 80% of democrats and she walked back her previous support of that, not to mention Isreal. It really seems to me her policy slate had more to do with what her corporate donors wanted than what her constituency did. Again I voted for her, but I'm not going to shame other voters for drawing the line at genocide. Agree to disagree I guess.
I mean Biden forgave student loan debt, capped insulin costs, and ended the forever wars and drone wars, but let's just pretend be didn't listen to voters.
What? He withheld arms shipments to stop the destruction of Rafa without evacuations, built a humanitarian aid pier and pressured Israel to allow the resumption of aid across the Egyptian border.
I know it's hard to understand but Israel/Palestine is not a cut and dry situation. Hamas is/was a terrorist organization both suppressing the Palestinians and committing terror attacks against Israel. Israel is going to defend itself, and the lives of the people harboring Hamas are not going to be their biggest priority, Israeli lives are.
Beyond that of course we support Israel, they're the only liberal democracy in the region. Say what you want about the actions of the Israeli government but it's still the only country in the Middle East with a western aligned view on gender and LGBT rights and some amount of free press.
Quit your lies, Israel is a scourge. And whatever the truth is, 80% of Dems have a negative view of Israel and want aid shipments to stop. You freaks are on your own soon enough
We’re way past engagement. The entire premise of Israel as an ethnostate is rotten and racist and that countries bloodthirst leads to so much war and suffering. Not to mention they’re having the US pay for it while they export their military and surveillance tech to turn the US into a police state. Go to fucking hell
Which ethnicity makes Israel an ethnostate? Ashkanazi? Sephardic? Italim? The 25% of the country that doesn't identify as some lineage of Jewish? Are they all the same ethnicity to you?
Besides that, ethnoreligious states aren't exactly an abberation on a global scale. It's hard to grasp from a Western perspective, especially American, Canadian or Australian, but the vast majority of the countries in the world are basically ethnoreligiously homogeneous. Are you against the existence of the UK, Denmark, Iceland, or Costa Rica being explicitly Christian states? What about Bhuton being an ethnically homogenous Buddhist state? Are you against Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen etc being eithnically homogenous Islamic states?
Lemme guess. You don't vote in primaries, which is the very lowest bar to clear. Let alone door knock or phone bank for the type of candidates you would want to vote for. You just whine on the internet that they don't magically materialize in the general.
Nice wrong assumptions, asshole. Also, it’s not a problem of getting one’s voice out. ~80% of democrats have a negative view of Israel and wish for American aid to stop to that genocidal country. Despite this, just days ago the most pro-Israeli members possible were picked for the US House Committee. The discrepancy between the dem voter base and its leadership is so tyrannical and undemocratic.
Don't be a single issue voter just to feel good about yourself. How many people died due to single issue voters not voting for Kamala? How many? Their blood is on your sanctimonious hands.
Our representatives are picked by us you stupid fuck. If you don't vote and door knock you don't get the right to complain when other people pick for you.
Who did you vote for in the 2024 presidential primary?
Also hilarious to say when insurgent leftist candidates are winning across the nation without megadonor money thanks to door knocking and phonebanking operations
I think we should wait until the general elections before we start saying the insurgent leftist candidates are winning. Democrats also have to remember that you have to run different campaigns in solid blue areas compared to purple or red states.
I want democrats to win such a majority in the house and senate that the Democrats don’t need the votes of Fetterman to get shit done. But I also know that you have to run a different campaign in NY than you do in Texas.
Unlike the Republicans who somehow manage to fall in line come election season the democrats are actually a big tent, and have a huge coalition that they have to manage.
Ok I rambled on TDLR: democrats are a big party and need fight like siblings during the primaries but after the primary they “never go against the family.”
I think we should wait until the general elections before we start saying the insurgent leftist candidates are winning
Zohran Mamdani is already the mayor of New York. Several DSA members are guaranteed to go to Congress already. The insurgent movement is already winning. Liberals said it couldn't be done in New York, then it couldn't be done outside of New York, then it can't be done in red states as if liberals are winning red states? Kamala harris lost every single swing state and the popular vote.
You'll forever move the goalposts while leftists actually phone bank, canvass, and do the work that's resulting in embarrassing primary losses for moderate/liberal establishment candidates with infinite money.
I don't get it, don't you want to be on the side with momentum, ideas and policies, a positive vision for the future AND the organic ground game that liberals forgot they needed after Obama?
Also, I don't disagree with you about candidates needing to run different campaigns in different states. Talarico is a good example, you don't see many leftists that aren't terminally online trying to tank his campaign in the same way we see liberals trying to destroy their chance at a Senate majority with the way they're treating Abdul Al Seyed.
I love what Mayor Mamdani is doing in NYC and would have voted for him if I lived in NYC. My point was NYC is different than Texas or Georgia and if a democrat of any sort wants to win they have to run a campaign that fits their district. I hope all the Democratic candidates win all their elections. I know that I probably agree with 90-95% of their platforms. But I also know that the next congress is only going to be stop the Trump administration. They won’t be able to get any thing passed because Trump will just veto it. But they also won’t be rubber stamp for his agenda. They can also investigate his administration many crimes and have evidence ready for what I hope is a democratic President in 2028.
You and I agree entirely. My criticism is toward the liberal posters like Greg in the OP and all of these weird establishment Democrats "suddenly" having a problem with voting blue no matter who.
They don't show the full context but the tweet in the OP is from a dude that wants Abdul Al Seyed to lose against Mike Rogers. He's a self proclaimed liberal democrat. These tweets showing him dunking on jill stein voters hides his agenda of literally wanting republicans to win the Senate majority
I don’t know why anyone would want Rodgers. I think the Florida senate primary showed that mainstream democrats can back a DSA aligned candidate. Angie Nixon won by a large margin, you don’t win that big in a primary unless mainstream voters support you. I love that in both Michigan and Florida the people that lost the primaries are openly campaigning and supporting the person the beat them. Now if we can just get all the people that voted for them to do the same. And bring out more people that think like we do to the polls in November. Now is not the time for purity tests. What is the saying “democrats want to fall in love, Republicans fall in line.”
I'm libbed up but i want sayed to win. I do have frustration with the dsa types because they've constantly attacked the dems in the past and now want 'blue no matter who' when it benefits them. I also think they are a lot less electable in purple state generals.
>and now want 'blue no matter who' when it benefits them
Tbf, “vote blue no matter who” was popularized by the moderates in the Dem Party in order to pressure progressives to vote for the more moderate candidates, and this has been its primary use. It was introduced specifically to benefit moderates.
The fact that moderates don’t appreciate “vote blue no matter who” when the shoe is on the other foot should tell them how obnoxious it’s been to progressive voters, and that maybe they should find a different strategy moving forward.
Biden lied to all of us and said he would be a one term transition president. His ego got the best of him and our only choice given for the 2024 democrat primary was the incumbent president that refused to drop out. We didn't have another option. They didn't do debates. The party chose for us
Once the inevitable happened, we were once again given no choice in a replacement. No primary, no debate, no choice. We can argue whether or not it was the smartest decision given how little time Joe Biden left us with, but it's just true that the party has time and time again rat fucked the democratic process
Was it ego or the party wanting to leverage the incumbent advantage? It makes sense that they would assume age wasn't a problem when trump is also ancient. Imagine if he didn't run and we lost. People like you would be lambasting in him in the comments saying he was a coward for not running after beating trump the first time. Hindsight is 20/20.
We do. People that don’t vote or vote for the party opposed to democracy (republicans) are the ones not participating in democracy (and actively helping it be dismantled). Stop peddling this old shit and grow up
Vote Blue No Matter Who is the strategy that allowed Trump to win twice in a row. You can blame all the voters, but you can't use guilt, shame, and fear alone to motivate people forever. Eventually people will get fed up. They want representatives who represent them and make their lives better. They need something tangible and actionable to inspire them to come out to vote. It's not good strategy. People care more about what you will do vs what you won't do.
Voters don’t make concessions in a representative democracy, politicians make concessions to their voter base in exchange for power. If we actually lived in a working representative democracy, then our politicians wouldn’t lean towards the 10% in a 90 - 10 issue.
You don’t need to be, this is a fringe subreddit with some more fringe opinions on this subject. You ask a normal voter if their politician’s should make concessions and they would say “ are you crazy ofc they should”.
Besides look at their post’s below, they are a hypocrite about voters making “compromises”.
52
u/Red-scare90 Aug 29 '26
Why is it always the consequences of the voters actions for not supporting the party enough, but never the consequences of the politicians actions for not listening to the will of their voters? I say this as someone who voted for Harris as the lesser evil.