843
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
843 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2779 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Being against republican policy plans is not actually a prescriptive policy plan and won't turn out voters who aren't already 100% with you already. Democrats always lose on Hillary/Kerry "I promise you nothing but defeat for the republicans" platforms without a Clinton/Obama charisma dynamo as an incumbent, and not to downplay Harris' charisma, but she had to drop out before her home state in 2020 to avoid embarrassing under-performance and isn't really an incumbent.
The phrase "hold your nose and vote for _______________" exists entirely because voters turn out for candidates who they aren't 100% with.
You'd agree that the 2020 primary is quite a bit different from the current scenario we're looking at, yeah? As the Brits say, chalk and cheese.
As far as prescriptive policy, yeah, I'd love to see more, and wish it were more politically viable. That's the point where we need to start talking about extended strategy, which the US citizenry needs to get a better grasp on if we're going to claw our way forward. In the mean time harm reduction is a valid mindset.
It's not just politically viable for the democrats to be more proactive, it's smart politics. The right wing of the DNC has convinced everyone that to run on a non-GOP platform is politically nonviable. This is a lie, but it persists, and has fundamentally turned the DNC into a conservative party. They're conserving post-Great Recession America against the GOP's Fallout-style future 50's, but it's still fundamentally a conservative position ill-suited to the age demographics that trend DNC in terms of votes.
I largely agree with this. That's different than saying that the two parties as they currently exist are mirror images of one another though.
As far as the content of your post, that's where the need for extended strategy comes in. Until enough progressives/leftists work their way into the structure of the Democratic party on a state and federal level what you're describing is unlikely to change. Bemoan the two party duopoly as much as you like, but it's a reality. The way to change it is to infiltrate it and fundamentally alter the mechanisms that perpetuate it. It's not going to work to just hope for one progressive/leftist at the top of the ticket, and complaining that the person at the top isn't progressive/leftist enough can frankly be met with, "well, yeah, not much of a surprise there." The Tea Party is the template. They completely turned their party to shit (well, more so anyway), but successfully infiltrated the party apparatus to reflect their political preferences. If the left does something similar we can actually make 3rd parties viable and no longer be beholden to the Democratic party, but that's most probably a decade+ long project if we're being honest about it. It's unfortunate that the left is as fractious as it is; it only makes something like this more difficult.