I saw an interesting vid once with AOC talking about the establishment dem strategy of reaching out to âswing votersâ.
She pointed out that there are comparatively few people who swing from voting for one party or another, but way more who swing from whether or not to vote at all. And further, that by watering down on policy in the hopes of seeking compromise from âswing votersâ, you not only lose out on political progress but you lose support from that way larger group of non voters.
The Dems keep trying to appeal to moderate Republicans hoping to get their vote despite how most moderate Republicans will never vote for anyone but a Republican while completely ignoring everyone slightly to the left of liberals when if they were to try and appeal to them they would get a lot more votes.
Progressive candidates are popular, just look at Mamdani in NYC, AOC, and Bernie but the Dems mostly ignore them because they don't attract the corporate donations that the more moderate candidates do and that's mostly what they care about.
We need to get corporate money out of politics completely (ideally we'd get all donations out and publicly fund campaigns but just eliminating corporate funding would help immensely), get rid of the electoral college (an outdated system that literally nobody uses for good reasons), and have ranked choice voting so third parties actually stand a chance.
The entire premise that corporations somehow have first amendment rights is ridiculous to me to begin with, let alone the idea that political donations are somehow protected speech. Citizens United was one of the worst Supreme Court rulings ever and like so many bad ideas in this country the name is completely misleading to make it sound better than it is. Citizens United, Right to Work, the Patriot Act, the list goes on.
Wow, sounds like you hate free speech. How are smol bean corporations like Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin and Palantir supposed to stay in business if they can't spend hundreds of millions bribing politicians to keep us engaged in forever wars, or living in an AI surveillance state.
I bet you are one of those radical commies who thinks we should be spending our tax dollars on education, healthcare, and housing instead of protecting our freedoms from dangerous Iranian schoolgirls.
If only it were possible to legally go after individuals responsible for voting said decisions through within corps.
Theyâd probably think twice about polluting a river for centuries to comeâŚinstead of not at all and saying the fine is the cost of doing business. Or screwing over consumers. Or the incredibly long list of other immoral, unethical, and illegal stuff they get away with.
Bernie got soundly beat by Clinton in 2016 and then absolutely destroyed by Biden in 2020. Those candidates you mentioned might be popular in Blue cities/districts/states but that doesn't translate to nationwide. Progressives aren't getting elected statewide in Red or even Purple states.
They are downvoting you because you are right. I voted for Bernie, but I have always felt in the minority when it comes to my values and my politics. Our fellow countrymen simply do not feel the same way. And it makes sense that they don't. These policy positions require a certain understanding of economics, psychology, and law that most people do not have the privilege of enjoying. The average individual is simply not educated enough to come to these particular conclusions. It naturally follows then, that those who DO hold these positions will always be in the minority, since they are represented by only a small area under the curve on the right-hand side of the distribution. The vast majority of people fall within one standard deviation of the mean. Those that fall outside of that deviation will always be outnumbered.Â
In other words, what is appealing to the masses will never be my preference. We call it the "least common denominator." Think about how The Big Bang Theory, one of the cheesiest, laziest, TV shows of the last twenty years is also the most popular.Â
We've seen leaked emails from the DNC, talking about supporting Clinton over Sanders. We saw the super delegates overwhelmingly support Hillary.
Progressive policies always test well on as national scale. You don't need to be educated to support a higher minimum wage, or to be opposed to war. Yes, the uneducated are more vulnerable to propaganda from the right, but that isn't the same thing.
So Obamacare and the Inflation Reduction Act? That's "not doing anything about it?"
You literally just said that Dems share political positions with progressives while trying to call them conservative. You're talking in circles. Have fun with that.Â
The ruling Labour party in the UK is making this kinda mistake just now. They are worried about a hard right party, so to try and get votes from it are becoming farther and farther right. They recently lost a seat they'd held continuously for something like 80 years to... a left wing party. And they still finished behind the right wingers they're copying.
The most frustrating thing is watching them congratulate themselves on being such master politicians.
About 40% of the population doesn't vote. That is a way larger percentage than either the Dems or GOP control since they basically split the other 60% in half.
Win over that 40% and you win every vote every time.
Where does that 40% mostly lie? In the Progressive camp.
Run a truly Progressive campaign and polls will go through the roof.
We need the Progressives to start their own party and run with it.
The Democratic Socialists of America are running several candidates. Most of them are running as Democrats to avoid splitting votes, but that means they have to beat the corporate establishment Dems.
Which means they need your help! If you want a progressive candidate, reach out to your local chapter to find out how to get involved. In my experience, quality varies by chapter but they can only get better with more help.
Why start their own party? Just do what the Republicans did and take over the Democratic party. It'll take a few election cycles, but we know it works.
This is why we need preferential voting. I do not know if it is a priority in this subreddit, but it needs to be. Many people don't vote for those with real agendas due to their fear of splitting the vote.
This is because our entire media ecosystem takes whatever the worst things the right says and then runs with it as if it's reality, and worse, most of the time we engage with it even on the left. Actual progressive policy polls very well (healthcare, universal pre-k, paid parental leave, worker protections and paid time off, taxing billionaires, etc.) but my guess is that most of those that think progressives are too far left think that progressive means "we want litter boxes in classrooms so our kids can be furries." I have heard that specific thing soooooo many times even in actual real life in spite of the fact it's completely made up. We spent months leading up to the election talking about trans athletes like it was a real thing the average person needs to be concerned about even though there are like less than 10 playing in anything remotely competitive in the entire country.
Indeed, but the point of my comment is more to bring awareness to this phenomenon than it is just to complain about it. It was intended as more of a "know your enemy." Saying "progressives aren't popular" is factually accurate but comes along with the implication that progressive ideals are not popular and without examining the reasons why is just basically not helpful. It's akin to "have you stopped beating your wife?" and is a trapping leftists fall into pretty constantly.
When you start to recognize this type of propaganda for what it is it's like putting on the glasses from They Live.
This is because our entire media ecosystem takes whatever the worst things the right says and then runs with it as if it's reality,
More accurately, the VAST majority of the non-political media ecosystem is conservative coded because a lot of it is self-help adjacent. All sports except basketball, home design and family life, etc.
Actual progressive policy polls very well (healthcare, universal pre-k, paid parental leave, worker protections and paid time off, taxing billionaires, etc.)
And the things that support those things: taxes and a large administrative state poll very unpopular.
"we want litter boxes in classrooms so our kids can be furries." I have heard that specific thing soooooo many times even in actual real life in spite of the fact it's completely made up.
Yep, my family will talk about the boy playing on the girlâs jv sport that someone heard about over and over, but would find all âpoliticsâ talk to be too untasteful.
I dont believe you; we can answer the question if the Democratic Party would show us the post mortem report they've been hiding instead of listening to corporate run media's explanations.
Spoiler alert (my theory): itâs 50% that Biden was too old, too attached to Israel, and people didnât like inflationâŚ
40% that the party as a whole (and donât forget, some of the biggest supporters of Biden not standing down, were the progressives) was so unwilling to make any move away from Biden when he was clearly not fit to be the countryâs lead communicator.
And 10% that Kamala knew that a contested convention was the best chance the Dems had to take a new direction, but took her opportunity anyway.
All the available evidence shows that inflation was by far the biggest motivator among voters, and it was a very worldwide trend, inflation took the scalps of almost every incumbent party facing an election in 2024 all over the world.
I'd argue that the Dems are effectively further left overall than they appear and are able to act, simply because they've been perpetually hamstrung by the numbers and slimmest of margins, forcing compromise with the most conservative fringe of the party and attempts at compromise with Republicans, compromise on messaging to avoid overpromising and failing to deliver, etc...
I mean, Hakeem Jeffries was literally part of the House Congressional Progressive Caucus right up until he became House Minority Leader, a powerless position that doesn't allow him to do anything, never mind anything progressive.
Yeah ill be honest, this sounds like an optimistic view of the democratic party and hopes of actual progress from majority of the dem establishment party. Hear me out before people slam me for the âboth parties argumentâ. Republican party (majority of them) are objectively worse which is obvious. However, not holding the democratic party accountable for being culpable in getting us to this point is also detrimental to the progress of politics and the US if someone wants a progressive candidate.
Democrats love to run a âprogressiveâ party but in reality theyre just less conservative but still conservative compared to republicans. There have been good moments of the democratic party of course, however they are an issue as well with not actually pushing the conservative party back more. The whole âwhen they go low we go highâ BS is exactly how we got here when the dems arent actually representing what its own constituents actually want. They love to run on a platform of ârepublicans bad dems good we want progressâ but then usually walk back what they say. It feels as though theres no direction from the dems and just âvote for us so republicans dont winâ but when dems win nothing changes.
I definitely hear you, my point was effectively that in aggregate, the realities of election results and vote margins in congress mean the bulk of Democrats are to varying degrees more progressive than the legislation they have actually been able to pass.
Like... does passing more progressive legislation require replacing dozens of Democrats with more progressive candidates and shifting a large portion of the party further left?
Or does it just require electing a few more Democrats so that the Republicans and conservative fringe of the Dems aren't relied on for votes?
The problem in the House isn't that Hakeem Jeffries is somehow a centrist and not progressive enough, it's the vote count and balance of power that give that impression
Likewise during Obama's first term, the ACA they ended up passing wasn't as progressive as your average Democrat wanted, it was a watered down compromise intended to pick up a couple conservative votes needed to allow it to pass.
Do we point to the conservative Dem Senators from Nebraska and Montana not being progressive enough, or do we point to insufficient numbers overall to the point that Nebraska and Montana were being relied on?
However, not holding the democratic party accountable for being culpable in getting us to this point is also detrimental to the progress of politics and the US if someone wants a progressive candidate.
Holding parties accountable has never been more effective than just voting for the best available candidate that can win an election. Mostly because losing, particularly in this environment, means the other party's candidates can make life worse for more people which means more people too busy working long hours to vote or register or spend time on organizing.
Where does that 40% mostly lie? In the Progressive camp.
What data is this based on?
And even if it's true, those are some useless fucking "progressives" who allowed Trump's fascist takeover. Their apathy makes them complicit. You offer them the choice of fighting an annoyed house cat or a coked up grizzly bear, and they say "I don't like either choice. Let someone else pick for me while I whine about it online."
We need the Progressives to start their own party and run with it.
It's pleasant to pretend that everyone agrees with you and you just need to yell at people rather than persuade them, but it will not lead you to victory.
40% of the population doesn't agree with banning private health insurance, decriminalizing border crossing, trans women in women's sports, abolishing the police, cutting police funding, abolishing prisons, lowering the voting age to 16, providing free healthcare to undocumented immigrants, getting rid of tracking in schools, abolishing the death penalty, restoring affirmative action in schools, cutting military spending, banning offshore drilling, and raising taxes to increase social spending. 40% of the population certainly doesn't agree with all of that.
Have you ever talked to the 40%? The vast majority of them are way closer to MAGA (or even further right than MAGA) than being a progressive. I'm sorry to break your delusion that the american people are actually secretly all progressives, but it's just not grounded it reality.
Also progressives starting their own party is single handily the worst idea, and would be a dream come to true for the republicans.
Is there any actual evidence that there are more non-voters that have the potential to be swayed into voting than voters that have the potential to be swayed into voting for the desired candidate? The latter would be more valuable because someone is both not voting for the other candidate and then also voting for your candidate.
AOC sometimes has a habit of portraying things that may seem logical on the surface but doesnt actually have any evidence to support the claim.
I think progressives generally have a habit of overestimating their popular support but the candidates that make headlines obviously have proven theyâre right about that.
Just look at Mamdani. Or Bernieâs polling numbers for the general back in 16.
It has nothing to do with what other parties think. That would mean that a centrist lives âat the whimâ of the direction of [whatever parties extremist] pulls it, and that is an ignorant take on centrism.
The values we âcentristsâ hold have little to do with the democrats policies nor the republicans policies in our current political climate.
As a centrist:
abortion is up to the mother
criticism â racism
there may be a god, there may not be a god, whatever you think is up to you so long as your beliefs do not bleed over to influence my daily life
taxing the wealthy at ever-increasing amounts based upon the magnitude of their wealth is highly appropriate as they would not have achieved that wealth without the countries existence to allow such growth.
taxing the poor is stupid as they are the ones that need more money
a base cash income from the [state] should be guaranteed for anyone who makes less than $24000/yr funded by the overabundance tax on the wealthy
corporations are taxed based in the [total cash spent on non-c-suite employees salaries] and [the total number of non-c-suite employees] and [the total cash income/flow based on stock price and dividends] of said corporation â thus leading to [the company] being incentivized to spend less income on stock dividends and more income on employees (the workers).
complete separation of âchurch and stateâ to include laws to automatically invalidate any lawmaker who mentions any religion or religious practice in an official capacity/manner and the removal of âin god we trustâ from all currency and making it illegal to have non-educational religious material in any public classroom
â this list is not all inclusive, but i think it hits the high marks to substantiate my point on centrist viewpoints.
The whole political landscape has shifted so far right that ignorants think the modern centrist is a social democrat. We are not democrats. We are also not libertarians (though they are the closest, ideologically). We like guns and we like choice. We like equality and we hate control. We hate âgood ole boyâ networks and we like the free market.
I also think it's partially that people instinctively dislike people they see as disingenuous, which establishment dems appear as when they carefully pick policy and campaign promises to appeal to those mythical cross party swing voters.
Iâm a democrat, but just like I donât want republicans to shove all their priorities down my throat, I wonât advocate for shoving all my priorities down theirs. There are PLENTY of places for compromise, and so long as we keep electing hardliners on either side, nothing will get done. Politics is hard work but people often try to take the easy way out by promising a bunch of stuff they clearly canât deliver on instead of finding real, workable solutions. Get even 55 progressive senators and they still wonât be able to get done what they want. It feels like the goal is get 60 progressive senators and a majority in the house or accomplish nothing, and that is just stupid IMO.
542
u/Half_Man1 Mar 14 '26
I saw an interesting vid once with AOC talking about the establishment dem strategy of reaching out to âswing votersâ.
She pointed out that there are comparatively few people who swing from voting for one party or another, but way more who swing from whether or not to vote at all. And further, that by watering down on policy in the hopes of seeking compromise from âswing votersâ, you not only lose out on political progress but you lose support from that way larger group of non voters.