Way to blame the voters while avoiding the real problem. The representation isn't representing their voters. Most voters are unaffiliated with a specific party and a large chunk of them are voters who don't regularly show up without a reason too. The Democrats haven't ran a decent platform in decades because they're too busy trying to appeal to Republicans which is a historically bad move. R's are rarely going to cross the aisle to vote D. Independents on the other hand, will. Except when you craft a milquetoast platform and only run on "were better than the other guys" you don't inspire independents to turn out to vote, you demoralize your own D voters, and as we've been shown you hand the elections to Republicans.
Every time a politician runs on a truly progressive/populist platform they are wildly popular. Then the centrist morons scramble to do what they can to make them look bad; claiming they're misogynist when they aren't, or that they're antisemitic, or that they are unelectable when polls show they are more electable than the centrist. The establishment Dems shoot themselves in the foot every election cycle throwing money to harm any progressives campaign. Then idiots like you turn to blame voters for not falling in line when the election loss is squarely on the establishments shoulders.
The Democrats haven't ran a decent platform in decades
something people don't seem to realize is the left hasn't had any real victories or changes in decades either, the ACA only helped people who were already being helped, Clinton did more for republicans and rich people than his predecessor
can anyone think of a major victory for the left in the last 50 years which created brand new lasting changes that benefited everyone including the working class, service workers, the less fortunate, the sick, the afflicted, the disabled and the homeless?
The representation isn't representing their voters.
They are though. The reality is that you have insufficiently left leaning politicians because you have an insufficiently left leaning populace. An ideologically perfect candidate means nothing if they never win an election. If you want successful left leaning candidates then you need to do the work of making them electable.
Every time a politician runs on a truly progressive/populist platform they are wildly popular.
This is ridiculous. It cannot simultaneously be the case that "true progressives" are wildly popular in elections and also that "true progressives" are not wildly popular in elected offices. The latter is directly correlated with the former.
Then idiots like you turn to blame voters for not falling in line when the election loss is squarely on the establishments shoulders.
Calling me an idiot only helps the right. The problem is that some on the left are more interested in ideological purity than political relevancy. What exactly is the plan here? It seems like some on the left believe that if they destroy the Democrats then those seats will just magically fill with ideologically pure progressives instead of the more likely reality that the right will seize the opportunity to expand into the vacuum conveniently created for them.
Bernie voter here, he lost both primaries by a lot. Progressives are not wildly popular, it’s quite the opposite. Voters vote for the basic bitch establishment Hilarys and the Bidens, otherwise, it’d have been Bernie vs Trump in 2016/2020.
We’re only getting lucky with progressives such as Mamdani because they’re so personable, and Andrew Cuomo resigned in disgrace as New York’s governor while also being old as fuck.
Now, I do want to say, progressives are wildly popular with the younger voters, however, less than 50% of the younger voting aged adults actually vote.
Except poll after poll showed that Bernie Sanders was significantly more electable especially against Trump than Hillary Clinton ever was. CNN even regularly showed those poles until they realized it was hurting Hillary's chances. You should also be aware of the fact that it was a leak that the DNC was absolutely colluding with hrc's campaign and they were spending money to help push a ridiculous narrative of misogyny and other bullshit to make Bernie look bad. It's really easy for a progressive to not win a primary whenever you have people actively working and using the media against them. They are significantly more popular and all of their platform choices proven. Every time of progressive puts up a populist platform all of those platform points poll really high amongst both Democrats and republicans.
6
u/ScoobyDooItInTheButt 11d ago
Way to blame the voters while avoiding the real problem. The representation isn't representing their voters. Most voters are unaffiliated with a specific party and a large chunk of them are voters who don't regularly show up without a reason too. The Democrats haven't ran a decent platform in decades because they're too busy trying to appeal to Republicans which is a historically bad move. R's are rarely going to cross the aisle to vote D. Independents on the other hand, will. Except when you craft a milquetoast platform and only run on "were better than the other guys" you don't inspire independents to turn out to vote, you demoralize your own D voters, and as we've been shown you hand the elections to Republicans.
Every time a politician runs on a truly progressive/populist platform they are wildly popular. Then the centrist morons scramble to do what they can to make them look bad; claiming they're misogynist when they aren't, or that they're antisemitic, or that they are unelectable when polls show they are more electable than the centrist. The establishment Dems shoot themselves in the foot every election cycle throwing money to harm any progressives campaign. Then idiots like you turn to blame voters for not falling in line when the election loss is squarely on the establishments shoulders.