At least some of the hard r’s I once knew back then, blue collar old timers in the factory, supported Bernie. When he was not the one running, guess who they voted for.
It was the biggest mistake.
In related news, I saw today what year other countries implemented universal healthcare… My jaw dropped as I saw many dates listed long before I was even born.
The context works, but you’re very right, I changed it from it’s traditional meaning use in my sentence
I don’t even want to give validation to the party name, it’s not correct. Solid r’s is a good idea, and maybe I should have said that. Should I change it? I don’t mean no harm except to the traitors. As I think of it though, solid as an adjective has a neutral/positive connotation. Gonna need somthing with a negative connotation, no?
I hate this argument and this is coming from someone who dislikes Jill Stein she is doing things participating and organizing protests and so on constantly, you can argue their ineffective and they aren’t covered often in the media but she is factually doing things.
Literally mentioned an example of democrats failing in my now removed comment, but with context removed it’s real easy to say something banal and act like you’ve really accomplished something.
And discussing the logistics of our current electoral system is not liberalism, mod 🙄
Firstly, and I want to be very clear, this exact line of thinking is, in my view, one of the biggest political self-sabotage of the last decade. The “strategic voting” sermon is a toxic meme: it flatters people into thinking they’re doing game theory, when what they’re actually doing is laundering fear, cynicism, and party discipline into moral obligation.
In a FPtP voting system you must vote strategically. You must vote against the party you like least.
No. I don’t “must” do anything, and neither does any other voter. A vote is not a hostage note. It’s not a loyalty oath. It’s a signal of preference, and people will use it that way whether or not you approve.
And the biggest problem is: the whole argument relies on a fantasy version of voters. It assumes (1) everyone agrees on who is “viable,” (2) everyone shares the same ranking of “least bad,” and (3) everyone will coordinate on the same “strategic” choice. That’s not how human beings behave. People have different risk tolerances, different values, different lines they won’t cross, and different beliefs about what’s possible. You can’t brute-force a coordination problem by scolding individuals.
Worse: preaching “strategic voting” is self-fulfilling sabotage. The constant message of “don’t vote for who you want, vote for who you’re allowed to want” depresses enthusiasm, trains people to expect disappointment as the price of participation, and gives a hall pass to candidates to believe they no longer need to work for your vote. If you’re trying to help a candidate or party win, telling potential supporters that their real preferences are irresponsible is a great way to push them into disengagement, protest votes, or staying home, ALL of which are perfectly viable options.
What the “must vote strategically” story really does: it shifts responsibility away from candidates and parties to earn votes, and puts the onus on voters to simply accept less bad, which loses elections. It turns elections into a blame game where voters are treated like malfunctioning parts that need to be corrected, and it handed the country to fascism.
And I noticed what you did, trying to claim this as Russian propaganda. Again, deeply toxic, but I wouldn’t expect less from someone espousing the strategy that handed the country to Fascism.
They literally wrote in a book what they were going to do and then did it, and were caught doing it and kept doing it, and they continue doing it despite the fact they keep getting caught because so many have their heads buried squarely in the sand. But yeah, deeply toxic to point out. Definitely the cause of fascism.
Not wasting my time having this conversation when any thought out well reasoned response is just going to be removed by someone tripping on the least amount of power possible. But I will say you are reading this incorrectly. I don’t say must because you’re in a hostage situation, I say must because it is what has to happen to avoid fascism. Put your oppositional defiance disorder aside for a second and look at the situation realistically and objectively. Those saying the Dems are fascist anyway need a swift reality check, the Biden era was a golden age compared to this singular year. Do the Dems have to do more and better? Of course they do, that’s neither here nor there, but holding them to initially higher standards than Republicans just lets the Republicans get away with literal actual murder.
Most of my friends who bitch about having to vote for the lesser of two shitty candidates are also the ones who don’t vote in the primaries. It is so damn annoying.
Say you have a total of 10 voters. If two anti-fascist parties are split with 3 voters going to one party and 3 voters going with the other, but the fascists are more unified and get 4 voters, neither antifascist party has enough votes despite having a total of more voters, so the fascist party wins. Notice how both Anti-fascist parties sabotaged themselves by not being unified. It may be news to you but that is how First Past the Post voting works, and it is unfortunately the shitty system the US uses. The election happens whether you like it or not, and it is in your best interest to not end up being ruled by nazis. Perhaps a bit late for that though. Until that system is replaced along with that electoral college bullshit, the 2 senators per state regardless of population, and the cap on house reps, that’s the game.
Quit with these nonsense fever dreams. Nothing of what you described is remotely relevant to the discussion.
The party to blame for the failure of 2016 and 2024 WA the Democratic party. Trump was and is one of the least popular candidates of all time. Democrats litterally needed to make some of the worst strategic choices available to them to lose to him, and they did.
It’s the Democrats fault they lost both those elections. The lost those elections by blaming voters in advance while they courted a non existent center.
Wait, I thought they represented “less than 1% of the vote” and therefore don’t matter. But Democrats’ failure to pander to them cost them the election too? I’m confused.
Every voter you blame for the failure of the Democrats to do the literally measliest effort to court their own base is two voters you’ve cost us in the next election. If you blame greens, your doing 3x damage to the future prospects of Democrats.
You are doing actual fucking damage in the effort to stop fascism when you blame voters instead of the party. If you did it during the last election cycle, you literally paved the way for Trump to come into power.
Let me also say, you are right that blaming specific groups of voters is not a good campaign strategy. I’m not suggesting we go knock on doors and berate people who identify as leftist but refuse to vote for Democrats. Of course it’s better to try and persuade them.
That being said, I can personally come to the conclusion that 2024 was in part their fault, and it does no harm to tell the truth on an obscure web forum that maybe 100 people will read.
Trump won because he talked about the shit folk cared about (economy and jobs). He was lying obviously, but Dems had a more decent candidate and put nothing forward. You have to say what you’ll do, not what you won’t. Dems priority is keeping a moderate grip on selections. They stiffed Bernie and got through coronation of Harris.
Any reasonable candidate and message and they’d win. See Mamdani for more information.
But surely they’ll have a good candidate for next election because they learned right? Yeah no. The DNC seems focussed on ROI for their donors.
Saying that, I’d still vote for them, but this whole blame voters is BS. It won’t change people’s minds. Just remind them that the rank and file as well as the leadership are toxic and reinforce in those people’s heads that they made the correct choice. Telling people they’re wrong is the worst way to persuade people. It gets folks backs up, and they’ll stubbornly argue green is orange. It’s effectively campaigning for the Republicans.
Folk need to understand psychology if they want to be a political activist. Without it, the risk of self-gratification and self-validation is the only achievement.
It’s impossible for any party to appeal to a majority of voters on everything. If Democrats could have done something to be more appealing to greens than Stein was, then whatever that something was would have turned off some other segment of the coalition, possible losing net votes. Winning a national election requires broad appeal, and being the only viable non-fascist, pro-democracy ticket should have been reason enough for any decent person to vote for the Democratic candidate. I don’t know what these greens want, but not living in a Christo-fascist hellhole is apparently not a high priority for them. Fuck them to hell.
This is a good example of the type of (nominally leftist) person who is essentially unpersuadable. How are you supposed to convince these guys to vote when they don’t see a meaningful difference between MAGA and normie Democrats? They don’t live in reality.
Shit like this is why we have trump
Biden is why we have Trump. Hillary is why we have Trump.
Jill “I couldn’t get more than 1% of the vote” Stein isn’t why we have Trump.
People blaming greens for the failure of the Democrats to campaign to their voters is why we have Trump.
Jill Stien is a Russian backed spoiler candidate only shows up every 4 years to pull votes.
Then don’t vote for her.
wrong
At least some of the hard r’s I once knew back then, blue collar old timers in the factory, supported Bernie. When he was not the one running, guess who they voted for.
It was the biggest mistake.
In related news, I saw today what year other countries implemented universal healthcare… My jaw dropped as I saw many dates listed long before I was even born.
I’m so sad.
Solid Rs is probably better than hard Rs. Was wondering why the hell you were throwing around a slur for a hot second. Either the R word or N word.
The context works, but you’re very right, I changed it from it’s traditional meaning use in my sentence
I don’t even want to give validation to the party name, it’s not correct. Solid r’s is a good idea, and maybe I should have said that. Should I change it? I don’t mean no harm except to the traitors. As I think of it though, solid as an adjective has a neutral/positive connotation. Gonna need somthing with a negative connotation, no?
Jill “I emerge from my hibernation once every four years to siphon off votes from the Dems” Stein certainly isn’t helping, though.
I hate this argument and this is coming from someone who dislikes Jill Stein she is doing things participating and organizing protests and so on constantly, you can argue their ineffective and they aren’t covered often in the media but she is factually doing things.
Ahh yes. The votes that Democrats are owed.
A number so high it would round to zero, 0.4% of the vote.
You are doing the thing which caused the Democrats to lose the election, here now.
Removed by mod
“Democrats can never fail, they can only be failed”
~Blue MAGA
Literally mentioned an example of democrats failing in my now removed comment, but with context removed it’s real easy to say something banal and act like you’ve really accomplished something.
And discussing the logistics of our current electoral system is not liberalism, mod 🙄
👋🍆💦
Firstly, and I want to be very clear, this exact line of thinking is, in my view, one of the biggest political self-sabotage of the last decade. The “strategic voting” sermon is a toxic meme: it flatters people into thinking they’re doing game theory, when what they’re actually doing is laundering fear, cynicism, and party discipline into moral obligation.
No. I don’t “must” do anything, and neither does any other voter. A vote is not a hostage note. It’s not a loyalty oath. It’s a signal of preference, and people will use it that way whether or not you approve.
And the biggest problem is: the whole argument relies on a fantasy version of voters. It assumes (1) everyone agrees on who is “viable,” (2) everyone shares the same ranking of “least bad,” and (3) everyone will coordinate on the same “strategic” choice. That’s not how human beings behave. People have different risk tolerances, different values, different lines they won’t cross, and different beliefs about what’s possible. You can’t brute-force a coordination problem by scolding individuals.
Worse: preaching “strategic voting” is self-fulfilling sabotage. The constant message of “don’t vote for who you want, vote for who you’re allowed to want” depresses enthusiasm, trains people to expect disappointment as the price of participation, and gives a hall pass to candidates to believe they no longer need to work for your vote. If you’re trying to help a candidate or party win, telling potential supporters that their real preferences are irresponsible is a great way to push them into disengagement, protest votes, or staying home, ALL of which are perfectly viable options.
What the “must vote strategically” story really does: it shifts responsibility away from candidates and parties to earn votes, and puts the onus on voters to simply accept less bad, which loses elections. It turns elections into a blame game where voters are treated like malfunctioning parts that need to be corrected, and it handed the country to fascism.
And I noticed what you did, trying to claim this as Russian propaganda. Again, deeply toxic, but I wouldn’t expect less from someone espousing the strategy that handed the country to Fascism.
They literally wrote in a book what they were going to do and then did it, and were caught doing it and kept doing it, and they continue doing it despite the fact they keep getting caught because so many have their heads buried squarely in the sand. But yeah, deeply toxic to point out. Definitely the cause of fascism.
Not wasting my time having this conversation when any thought out well reasoned response is just going to be removed by someone tripping on the least amount of power possible. But I will say you are reading this incorrectly. I don’t say must because you’re in a hostage situation, I say must because it is what has to happen to avoid fascism. Put your oppositional defiance disorder aside for a second and look at the situation realistically and objectively. Those saying the Dems are fascist anyway need a swift reality check, the Biden era was a golden age compared to this singular year. Do the Dems have to do more and better? Of course they do, that’s neither here nor there, but holding them to initially higher standards than Republicans just lets the Republicans get away with literal actual murder.
Most of my friends who bitch about having to vote for the lesser of two shitty candidates are also the ones who don’t vote in the primaries. It is so damn annoying.
Say you have a total of 10 voters. If two anti-fascist parties are split with 3 voters going to one party and 3 voters going with the other, but the fascists are more unified and get 4 voters, neither antifascist party has enough votes despite having a total of more voters, so the fascist party wins. Notice how both Anti-fascist parties sabotaged themselves by not being unified. It may be news to you but that is how First Past the Post voting works, and it is unfortunately the shitty system the US uses. The election happens whether you like it or not, and it is in your best interest to not end up being ruled by nazis. Perhaps a bit late for that though. Until that system is replaced along with that electoral college bullshit, the 2 senators per state regardless of population, and the cap on house reps, that’s the game.
Quit with these nonsense fever dreams. Nothing of what you described is remotely relevant to the discussion.
The party to blame for the failure of 2016 and 2024 WA the Democratic party. Trump was and is one of the least popular candidates of all time. Democrats litterally needed to make some of the worst strategic choices available to them to lose to him, and they did.
It’s the Democrats fault they lost both those elections. The lost those elections by blaming voters in advance while they courted a non existent center.
Well said!
that’s not what happened though. there were (at least) 2 fascists parties, and they’ve won every election since the 1860s.
Unfortunately that is pretty much how it’s been going.
Unfortunately you can’t reason people out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
If you have to make a hypothetical to have an argument sound realistic, you lose.
Please refer to community rule 3.
I’m not saying it isn’t total horseshit that needs to be gone, I’m just saying that is how the math works.
Ok then.
She certainly tried to help get Trump elected. Just because she’s ineffective doesn’t make her not a piece of shit.
Your doing the thing which caused Democrats to lose the election to Trump.
Wait, I thought they represented “less than 1% of the vote” and therefore don’t matter. But Democrats’ failure to pander to them cost them the election too? I’m confused.
Every voter you blame for the failure of the Democrats to do the literally measliest effort to court their own base is two voters you’ve cost us in the next election. If you blame greens, your doing 3x damage to the future prospects of Democrats.
You are doing actual fucking damage in the effort to stop fascism when you blame voters instead of the party. If you did it during the last election cycle, you literally paved the way for Trump to come into power.
Let me also say, you are right that blaming specific groups of voters is not a good campaign strategy. I’m not suggesting we go knock on doors and berate people who identify as leftist but refuse to vote for Democrats. Of course it’s better to try and persuade them.
That being said, I can personally come to the conclusion that 2024 was in part their fault, and it does no harm to tell the truth on an obscure web forum that maybe 100 people will read.
Trump won because he talked about the shit folk cared about (economy and jobs). He was lying obviously, but Dems had a more decent candidate and put nothing forward. You have to say what you’ll do, not what you won’t. Dems priority is keeping a moderate grip on selections. They stiffed Bernie and got through coronation of Harris.
Any reasonable candidate and message and they’d win. See Mamdani for more information.
But surely they’ll have a good candidate for next election because they learned right? Yeah no. The DNC seems focussed on ROI for their donors.
Saying that, I’d still vote for them, but this whole blame voters is BS. It won’t change people’s minds. Just remind them that the rank and file as well as the leadership are toxic and reinforce in those people’s heads that they made the correct choice. Telling people they’re wrong is the worst way to persuade people. It gets folks backs up, and they’ll stubbornly argue green is orange. It’s effectively campaigning for the Republicans.
Folk need to understand psychology if they want to be a political activist. Without it, the risk of self-gratification and self-validation is the only achievement.
It’s impossible for any party to appeal to a majority of voters on everything. If Democrats could have done something to be more appealing to greens than Stein was, then whatever that something was would have turned off some other segment of the coalition, possible losing net votes. Winning a national election requires broad appeal, and being the only viable non-fascist, pro-democracy ticket should have been reason enough for any decent person to vote for the Democratic candidate. I don’t know what these greens want, but not living in a Christo-fascist hellhole is apparently not a high priority for them. Fuck them to hell.
Non-fascist? What was their line on Palestine again? Tutting and selling more weapons?
They didn’t even have policy that appealed to most. They had policy appealed to their donors and it’s really naive if you cannot see that.
Democrats are not pro democracy nor non fascist.
This is a good example of the type of (nominally leftist) person who is essentially unpersuadable. How are you supposed to convince these guys to vote when they don’t see a meaningful difference between MAGA and normie Democrats? They don’t live in reality.
that’s a lie
Idk about that but for sure three things can be true.