Again: "Not doing exactly what I believe should be done as fast as I believe it should be done" =/= "doing jack-shit".
Because she's a private citizen. Why do you keep paying attention?
I think you've touched on a really important problem. It seems like the only meaningful power the left has is to not vote. But threatening to not vote for him, if he doesn't do XY or Z is not a credible threat at all. Since probably the people who would do this were never going to support him in the first place. And if anything, it makes moderate politicians rely more on voters that will credibly support them - i.e. moderates who like moderate policies.
This is the sentiment that I'm currently battling in my circle. I'm probably not the most effective because I feel it as well, though I hate admitting that to myself. I think I'm gonna let my people cool for a couple months and then try again cause the only thing I'm doing now trying to convince them that we all should still vote in Nov is making them more angry.
That makes no sense. He was apart of the administration that got us out of the last one! Stands to reason he's who you'd want to do it a second time, especially due to who he'd call in to help. Unless this is a troll.
Do the work. You can't have a sporadic presence on the state level, a handful of House reps, and a single Senator and expect to have more than a little influence on the party.
Thank you for posting. I agree with your view of this. All or nothing is a strategy that I will never ever get behind.
Clearly this country does not want progressive politicians. If actual electoral results are anything to go by.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the most extreme rhetoric seems to be coming from people who either can't vote in the election or people whose live in areas where their votes are highly unlikely to be marginally relevant in the Presidential race. In 2004 third party voting in the Presidential race crashed through the floor relative to 2000 and we're likely to see the same pattern here, because it's a lesson many only seem to learn through experience, and is why the problem re-emerged in 2016 as a new generation came of age not having experienced Bush vs Gore and Dubya's disastrous Presidency.
You may be right, but two things keep me positive:
the numbers just don't back that up
You can't rock up to a national election and expect to win it in one go outside of the most sapphire blue districts. This is why progressive causes get nowhere. You need to start locally and on the state level. You need to make inroads that way to build to regional dominance. No one is going to elect some nobody that no one knows or has any reason to trust. You're a snake oil salesman as far as they're concerned. You need to make connections with local organizations outside of your own and outside of the purely political ones. Then you'll have an easier time gaining a national presence.
I mean 2018 wasn't great either. there's a general sense that moderates just do better in general elections. it's probably right
You are missing my point. The Senate, the House, and the Presidency are all national level seats.
This is my view as well.
The democratic party is not a bulwark against fascism. The ideological leanings and actions of the Clinton and Obama administrations if anything accelerated the violent national imperialism that brought us to Trump
Online leftists have a dreadful habit of thinking that, because they support pro-working class positions, they get to speak for working-class people.
considering the biggest divide is age I find this hard to believe
It's been shown time and time again that in competitive swing districts, far left policies are a massive liability. We saw that in the 70s when Nixon dominated his elections, we saw it when the Justice Dem candidates all lost their purple district races, we saw it just now when Corbyn got destroyed vs Boris.
A mandated buy-in to insurance systems is a literal necessity when getting UHC done! There are EU countries which literally have a private mandated buy in as part of their healthcare structure, and Dems should be able to implement a public option in addition to that if they can take the Senate.
You're describing swing voters. Not the Democratic base. Voters reacting to the existence of shitty populist white swing voters does not mean that they also hold those views themselves. (see: black voters in 2016/2020)
It's not true. In Michigan Biden won voters in households with $50,000 or higher income, with his support increasing as income went up. Sanders won with voters from households with less than $50,000 income.
it would be hard for Sanders to lose the less than 50k crowd when he wins young voters by like 80 percent
Bernie would never win because he's completely uninterested in ever adapting or changing.
That happened like two years ago.
tbf the general questions being asked are framed as "how do I make an impact?" People are arguing that not voting is one of the best ways they can make their voice heard, but clearly activism is another element. Is anyone expected to hold that burden, particularly alone? Of course not. I personally can attribute the hope I have in the future of the party directly to my canvassing for Bernie this primary and gaining signatures around Florida universities to give our state's felons back their agency.
www.youtube.com
