What planet do you live on? Ever hear of the Lincoln Project? Do you not remember the Republicans throwing out their own Speaker of the House?
The turnout thing is accurate to a point, but is almost always (intentionally) misunderstood. The more left a voter gets, the more engaged they are, and the more likely they are to show up and vote for Democrats. That has been shown in multiple studies and is well understood even by establishment bobbleheads.
It’s the vast sea of disengaged and ideologically confused working class Americans that sometimes show up and sometimes don’t. We know how to reach these people, and the Democratic establishment just isn’t that interested. Their process is to message to these folks just enough to get 51% in swing states. That’s what keeps the margins so consistently tight, and Republicans win because reality doesn’t always conform to Democratic expectations.
In order to do better, Democrats have to be willing to anger their patrons. That’s not something they have been willing to do.
What was unique in this election is that the Republicans managed to pick up a lot of those voters. This election wasn’t swung by voter turnout. The unreliable voters turned out, but they turned out for Republicans. Democrats have now officially become the party of the wealthy,band Republicans are now the party of the working class. That’s obviously an insane disaster, and it’s pathetic that anyone is still defending the Democratic establishment.
The more left a voter gets, the more engaged they are, and the more likely they are to show up and vote for Democrats. That has been shown in multiple studies and is well understood even by establishment bobbleheads.
Care to share those studies?
It’s the vast sea of disengaged and ideologically confused working class Americans that sometimes show up and sometimes don’t.
What’s your source for this claim?
We know how to reach these people, and the Democratic establishment just isn’t that interested.
Who’s “we” and what makes you so confident that you know how to reach “these people”?
Their process is to message to these folks just enough to get 51% in swing states.
What’s your source for this claim?
In order to do better, Democrats have to be willing to anger their patrons.
Better in what way?
The unreliable voters turned out, but they turned out for Republicans.
Which indicates that these voters wanted someone furthest right. Meanwhile progressives claim the opposite is true: that democrats need to go further left.
That’s obviously an insane disaster, and it’s pathetic that anyone is still defending the Democratic establishment.
To not support democrats is to support republicans.
Why? Is your belief that progressives don’t show up based on anything but establishment talking points? But sure, I’ll do some work for you. See this Pew study.
Who’s “we” and what makes you so confident that you know how to reach “these people”?
Which indicates that these voters wanted someone furthest right.
Or, maybe the political universe can’t be captured in a single dimension. Most of the American public (barely) pays attention to politics for 3-4 months every 4 years. They aren’t exactly policy wonks. The dominant measure today is populist vs establishment. People don’t know what they believe, but they do know that neither party establishment gives two shits about them. They wanted a disruptor, and astoundingly they managed to figure out which candidate that was. Not that Trump will do shit for them, but they will learn that (again) soon enough.
Meanwhile progressives claim the opposite is true: that democrats need to go further left.
Do you know where left and right come from? It was the French parliament after the revolution. The left stood with the people, and the right stood with royalty. Democrats need to stand with the people. As I said above, left vs right political theory isn’t something that most voters (or politicians if we’re being honest) give a shit about. But, with growing inequality and corporate overreach, people do want politicians taking their sides. Trump had more leftist rhetoric than the Democrats.
To not support democrats is to support republicans.
Supporting Democrats and supporting the Democratic Establishment are two different things. I don’t give a shit about red vs blue, but I know that one party is more assailable than the other, so that’s where I look to make change for a better world.
Why? Is your belief that progressives don’t show up based on anything but establishment talking points? But sure, I’ll do some work for you. See this Pew study.
Nope, it’s based on the progressive talking point that democrats lost because Harris wasn’t far enough left. You’re not doing work for me. I didn’t make the claim. If you can’t be bothered to back up your own claims then they aren’t worth anything.
Progressives, this, and this.
Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see any source for that map. How did they get the numbers? What are the numbers? It just looks like someone colored a bunch of land and put some names on it. Not to mention it’s a Reddit post.
You’re confident that you know how to reach people that won’t vote democrat because of a town hall of Bernie? I must be missing something.
Um, get votes? I thought that was pretty obvious.
I’m not going to debate based on assumptions. Use your words.
Or, maybe the political universe can’t be captured in a single dimension.
Voters chose the candidate furthest to the right, it doesn’t get any more conclusive than that when it comes to whether voters want a candidate that’s further left.
Do you know where left and right come from?
The origins of left and right dont change anything. Just to be clear, I’d vote for a more progressive candidate. But they wouldn’t win in my red state. Moderates have won before though because they get a mix of voters that is larger than just right or left. And if our democracy is on the line then it isn’t time to let perfection be the enemy of progress.
If progressives keep sowing apathy for the Democratic Party then less people will vote democrat and the GOP will keep growing in power. That is, if we get to vote again, considering Trumps rhetoric.
Supporting Democrats and supporting the Democratic Establishment are two different things. I don’t give a shit about red vs blue, but I know that one party is more assailable than the other, so that’s where I look to make change for a better world.
Same here. But I don’t sow apathy for the better option because that gives voters a reason to not vote for that option and it doesn’t take a lot of voters staying home to lose an election.
it’s based on the progressive talking point that democrats lost because Harris wasn’t far enough left.
Is that a talking point? If so, progressives aren’t sticking to it very well. I mean, it’s true, but only because being further left is also further populist. Progressive analysis is far more extensive than “not left enough”. What you are talking about is a straw man constructed by establishment democrats. You love sources, so show me one progressive arguing this way.
You’re not doing work for me.
I am, because this stuff is easy to lookup, and your arguments are nothing but uncritically accepted vibes.
Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see any source for that map.
It’s a map of individual donors by county in the 2020 Democratic primary. The reddit link was the first to come up when I searched. I’ll find you a better link as soon as you show me a progressive saying Democrats lost because they weren’t left enough.
I’m not going to debate based on assumptions. Use your words.
If I have to explain to you that Democrats doing better in elections means getting more votes, I’ll be writing fucking novels. How about using your mind just a little?
I must be missing something.
That’s a little understated. You don’t see the significance of the furthest left Democratic candidate getting through to a fox news audience as applicable to the question?
You really don’t get it and, at this point, I’m happy to just leave it that way.
Is that a talking point? If so, progressives aren’t sticking to it very well. I mean, it’s true, but only because being further left is also further populist. Progressive analysis is far more extensive than “not left enough”. What you are talking about is a straw man constructed by establishment democrats. You love sources, so show me one progressive arguing this way.
You say it’s true but claim it’s a straw man constructed by establishment democrats, which is it? You’re contradicting yourself. Every thread on lemmy regarding Harris losing has someone saying it and now I can add you to the sources since you’re saying it’s true.
I am, because this stuff is easy to lookup, and your arguments are nothing but uncritically accepted vibes.
That’s not how the burden of proof works. You make the claim, you provide evidence to support the claim. Otherwise your claim is made up. If that needs to be explained to you then It’s no wonder you’re posting Reddit threads of screenshots with no sources as a source for your claims.
It’s a map of individual donors by county in the 2020 Democratic primary. The reddit link was the first to come up when I searched. I’ll find you a better link as soon as you show me a progressive saying Democrats lost because they weren’t left enough.
My source is the comment section of every post on lemmy regarding Harris losing. If I share an article claiming the same you’ve already primed the argument that it’s an establishment democrat straw man while also admitting it’s true.
If I have to explain to you that Democrats doing better in elections means getting more votes, I’ll be writing fucking novels. How about using your mind just a little?
This is how people making bad faith arguments move the goalpost. They make vague statements and when they are proven wrong they say they weren’t talking about that thing you assumed, they were referring to something else. The only way to prevent this is to call it out and make them be specific about their statements.
That’s a little understated. You don’t see the significance of the furthest left Democratic candidate getting through to a fox news audience as applicable to the question?
For that to be applicable to the question, he would have to be the only one that did it… Harris interviewed on Fox News also.
So I guess I’m not missing something, you are.
You really don’t get it and, at this point, I’m happy to just leave it that way.
I’m sure you’re happy to run away without any sources to your claims.
You say it’s true but claim it’s a straw man constructed by establishment democrats, which is it?
It’s definitionally true that the left says the centrist should move left. That’s what makes them the left. The actual left analysis over why she lost doesn’t begin and end with wanting her to move left. As I said before, mapping voters out on a right to left spectrum is not an accurate representation of voting preferences. Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was supposed to appeal to right leaning voters but backfired because it fed the narrative of Harris as a warmonger. Meanwhile Trump was coding himself as anti-war. The fact that Trump’s anti-war signaling was bullshit couldn’t be effectively countered because Harris had aligned herself with right wing war mongers. She damaged herself with the very same right leaning voters that she was trying to appeal to. Likewise with bragging about support from Wall Street and the nation’s CEOs. The theory that doing so would appeal to right leaning voters was misguided because populists on the right hate those people. Harris made herself the candidate of the wealthy, the deep state, and the status quo, everything that Trump has successfully branded himself as opposing. The left is used to Democrats leaning right because that’s been a constant since at least Bill Clinton. But Harris making rightward moves that damaged her with right leaning voters was insanity. The Democratic establishment lives in a bubble that hasn’t changed it’s modeling since the 90s.
You make the claim, you provide evidence to support the claim.
Asking for evidence to a claim is fine, but not when done in bad faith. First of all, I am not the only one here making claims.
Apathy caused democrats to lose voters in the 2024 election. Sowing more apathy won’t improve voter turnout.
Second of all, you are nitpicking half the links I gave, while ignoring what you can’t nitpick. You made no acknowledgement of that Pew study at all. I supplied my proof, and my complaint was for having to cast pearls before swine and the shitty way you went about asking for it without providing any evidence of your own claims, or even arguments as to why your claims should be believed.
As I said, I’ll be happy to find a better link for you on the fundraising map, as soon as you start providing some evidence for your own bald assertions. It’s not going to be a one way street.
This is how people making bad faith arguments move the goalpost
Well, you would know bad faith arguments, but that’s hardly applicable in this case. We are talking about how Democrats perform in elections so there is no reasonable ambiguity when I refer to Democrats “doing better”. That’s the last I’m going to say on this dumb side argument.
Harris interviewed on Fox News also.
An interview is not a town hall, and I didn’t just say that Bernie did a town hall on Fox, I linked to the video. Unlike Harris’ interview, the town hall included a right leaning audience that was responding well to left leaning arguments, which directly addressed what you asked me to address.
If you want to move the goalposts and look at just election results, that’s fine. Look into how many voters who split their ticket between AOC and Trump, and what they said when interviewed. You can find your own links until you start supporting your claims with something other than repetition.
Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was supposed to appeal to right leaning voters but backfired because it fed the narrative of Harris as a warmonger.
No republicans I know have referred to Harris as a warmonger but I have heard complaints from progressives about her stance on Gaza. So your comment implies that her campaigning with Cheney backfired by costing her votes from progressives. Which reinforces what you claim to be an establishment democrat narrative: that an increase amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris in 2024. So you’re contradicting yourself again.
She damaged herself with the very same right leaning voters that she was trying to appeal to.
Again, I’ve only heard complaints from progressives about her stance on the war in Gaza. In my experience republicans only complained about the money being spent in Gaza and Ukraine because they were told that was the cause of inflation.
The left is used to Democrats leaning right because that’s been a constant since at least Bill Clinton. But Harris making rightward moves that damaged her with right leaning voters was insanity. The Democratic establishment lives in a bubble that hasn’t changed it’s modeling since the 90s.
Since the 90s there have been 9 presidential elections and democrats have won 5 of them. It makes perfect sense for them to continue with at least some of the strategies that have earned them the majority of elections.
Asking for evidence to a claim is fine, but not when done in bad faith. First of all, I am not the only one here making claims.
How is asking for evidence done in bad faith? By doing so I found out that there was some truth to your claim that people on the further ends of the political spectrum tend to be more engaged.
Also I found out that there was no credibility to your claim that “we” know how to reach people and that democrats can’t be interested.
Second of all, you are nitpicking half the links I gave, while ignoring what you can’t nitpick. You made no acknowledgement of that Pew study at all. I supplied my proof, and my complaint was for having to cast pearls before swine and the shitty way you went about asking for it without providing any evidence of your own claims, or even arguments as to why your claims should be believed.
I pointed out that a screenshot of a heat map with no legend or any of the required information like quantity of donors or quantity of donations posted on Reddit, is not evidence of anything. That’s not nitpicking. That’s telling you what you should already know.
The Pew study showed that people furthest left and right on the spectrum were more politically engaged. They defined that as taking more about politics and being more likely to vote. Your claim was that the further left someone’s ideology the more likely they are to vote and vote democrat. I acknowledge the Pew study supports that they are more likely to vote but it doesn’t say they vote democrat, they are just as likely to be voting 3rd party.
As I said, I’ll be happy to find a better link for you on the fundraising map, as soon as you start providing some evidence for your own bald assertions. It’s not going to be a one way street.
What bald assertions are you referring to? I told you why I claimed that progressives didn’t show up to vote for Harris. I acknowledge that it is based on anecdotal evidence. You reinforced that anecdotal evidence by saying it’s true.
Well, you would know bad faith arguments, but that’s hardly applicable in this case. We are talking about how Democrats perform in elections so there is no reasonable ambiguity when I refer to Democrats “doing better”. That’s the last I’m going to say on this dumb side argument.
Yes, this isn’t my first day on the internet. For that reason I am familiar with bad faith arguments. “Doing better” could imply a better approval rating, more progressive policies, higher voter turnout, winning over more republican voters, winning over more progressive voters, earning more seats in Congress or the house and on and on. I didn’t even put effort into all the different things “doing better” could refer to but you’re getting upset because I’m calling out a common tactic in bad faith arguments.
An interview is not a town hall, and I didn’t just say that Bernie did a town hall on Fox, I linked to the video. Unlike Harris’ interview, the town hall included a right leaning audience that was responding well to left leaning arguments, which directly addressed what you asked me to address.
That “right leaning audience” sure did like his response about trusting scientists when it comes to corona virus and climate change. So the opposite of how a right leaning audience would respond. I live in a red state and there were political ads at this time of politicians killing Dr. Fauci. Those politicians won. This audience is far from “right leaning”.
None of this supports your claim that progressives know how to win over the disengaged voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum.
If you want to move the goalposts and look at just election results, that’s fine. Look into how many voters who split their ticket between AOC and Trump, and what they said when interviewed. You can find your own links until you start supporting your claims with something other than repetition.
This supports my point about the Pew study you shared: the farthest left voters are more likely to vote, just not necessarily for democrats.
Which brings us full circle back to my original point. A remarkable amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris.
Which reinforces what you claim to be an establishment democrat narrative: that an increase amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris in 2024. So you’re contradicting yourself again.
Liz Cheney is far more hated by the right than the left. (A flaw with the left from my perspective.)
BTW: I’m still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that progressives didn’t show for Harris.
Since the 90s there have been 9 presidential elections and democrats have won 5 of them. It makes perfect sense for them to continue with at least some of the strategies that have earned them the majority of elections.
And every time the Democrats move to the right, so do the Republicans. That is the process that got us to Trump so, no, I don’t think any sane person would look at where the country is today and pat the Democrats on the back. Aiming to be just a bit better than the Republicans just gives the Republicans space to be even worse. In the last 3 presidential elections, Democrats were so ineffective that they lost to Trump. The working class of this country has been on a steady downhill road for the last 50 years, and the messaging Bill Clinton used doesn’t work anymore.
Also, in at least one of those elections, Obama was the upstart populist candidate. Both Hillary and McCain were establishment candidates in that election. Obama then went full establishment as soon as he won, but his next opponent was Romney, who was also an establishment candidate. I don’t expect the Republicans to be running another milquetoast establishment candidate for a long time. It could even be argued that Bill Clinton ran as a populist for at least his first run, then moved to the center just like Obama. Reagan absolutely ran as a populist.
How is asking for evidence done in bad faith?
I literally explained this immediately after I said it.
I found out that there was some truth to your claim that people on the further ends of the political spectrum tend to be more engaged.
That’s literally what the Pew study showed. Your unfounded and ridiculous argument that they vote Republican notwithstanding. You could argue that they disproportionately vote for third party candidates but, since the libertarian party regularly outperforms the greens, progressives are far more loyal than the right. Anyways, third parties were clearly irrelevant this cycle, so now you have to pretend progressives are voting for Republicans.
I acknowledge that it is based on anecdotal evidence.
So, “just trust me bro”. Anecdotal evidence, especially filtered though a partisan hack, is worthless.
This supports my point about the Pew study you shared: the farthest left voters are more likely to vote, just not necessarily for democrats.
Funny how you assume that AOC/Trump voters are progressives voting for a Republican and not conservatives voting for a progressive, or liberals voting for a conservative and a progressive. The only reason you assumed the first is because it reinforces what you already believe. A rational analysis would consider the possibility that there is some other factor at play than ideological self identification. If you actually looked into the interviews done with these voters you would have seen the answer. They aren’t progressive, or liberal, or conservative. These are the voters I described before who don’t even think about politics until right before an election, then vote based on vibes. I guarantee that you know a lot of these people. Their choice was made on the populist-establishment spectrum, not the left-right spectrum. When people’s lives are shit, it’s populist messaging that gets their vote.
You think establishment Democrats would be more popular without criticism from progressives, but you actually have it wrong. This is a populist age and you can’t just make voters love the establishment, at least not without putting them in camps for brainwashing. With no populist left messaging, people aren’t just going to swing to the establishment. They will go populist right. At least with a populist left making noise in the Democratic camp, people have a reason to think that Democrats hear them. There is at least a hope that the Democrats will address their problems. Establishment Democrats think bragging about a great economy just tells people they aren’t seen. Even a con-artist like Trump seems like a better choice than just being invisible. When Democrats address this at all, it’s with a throw-away line in a speech and crocodile tears. People need a narrative. Trump gave them one, and Harris didn’t. Republicans nurture their populist base, while Democrats try to suppress theirs.
What planet do you live on? Ever hear of the Lincoln Project? Do you not remember the Republicans throwing out their own Speaker of the House?
The turnout thing is accurate to a point, but is almost always (intentionally) misunderstood. The more left a voter gets, the more engaged they are, and the more likely they are to show up and vote for Democrats. That has been shown in multiple studies and is well understood even by establishment bobbleheads.
It’s the vast sea of disengaged and ideologically confused working class Americans that sometimes show up and sometimes don’t. We know how to reach these people, and the Democratic establishment just isn’t that interested. Their process is to message to these folks just enough to get 51% in swing states. That’s what keeps the margins so consistently tight, and Republicans win because reality doesn’t always conform to Democratic expectations.
In order to do better, Democrats have to be willing to anger their patrons. That’s not something they have been willing to do.
What was unique in this election is that the Republicans managed to pick up a lot of those voters. This election wasn’t swung by voter turnout. The unreliable voters turned out, but they turned out for Republicans. Democrats have now officially become the party of the wealthy,band Republicans are now the party of the working class. That’s obviously an insane disaster, and it’s pathetic that anyone is still defending the Democratic establishment.
Care to share those studies?
What’s your source for this claim?
Who’s “we” and what makes you so confident that you know how to reach “these people”?
What’s your source for this claim?
Better in what way?
Which indicates that these voters wanted someone furthest right. Meanwhile progressives claim the opposite is true: that democrats need to go further left.
To not support democrats is to support republicans.
Why? Is your belief that progressives don’t show up based on anything but establishment talking points? But sure, I’ll do some work for you. See this Pew study.
Progressives, this, and this.
Um, get votes? I thought that was pretty obvious.
Or, maybe the political universe can’t be captured in a single dimension. Most of the American public (barely) pays attention to politics for 3-4 months every 4 years. They aren’t exactly policy wonks. The dominant measure today is populist vs establishment. People don’t know what they believe, but they do know that neither party establishment gives two shits about them. They wanted a disruptor, and astoundingly they managed to figure out which candidate that was. Not that Trump will do shit for them, but they will learn that (again) soon enough.
Do you know where left and right come from? It was the French parliament after the revolution. The left stood with the people, and the right stood with royalty. Democrats need to stand with the people. As I said above, left vs right political theory isn’t something that most voters (or politicians if we’re being honest) give a shit about. But, with growing inequality and corporate overreach, people do want politicians taking their sides. Trump had more leftist rhetoric than the Democrats.
Supporting Democrats and supporting the Democratic Establishment are two different things. I don’t give a shit about red vs blue, but I know that one party is more assailable than the other, so that’s where I look to make change for a better world.
Nope, it’s based on the progressive talking point that democrats lost because Harris wasn’t far enough left. You’re not doing work for me. I didn’t make the claim. If you can’t be bothered to back up your own claims then they aren’t worth anything.
Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see any source for that map. How did they get the numbers? What are the numbers? It just looks like someone colored a bunch of land and put some names on it. Not to mention it’s a Reddit post.
You’re confident that you know how to reach people that won’t vote democrat because of a town hall of Bernie? I must be missing something.
I’m not going to debate based on assumptions. Use your words.
Voters chose the candidate furthest to the right, it doesn’t get any more conclusive than that when it comes to whether voters want a candidate that’s further left.
The origins of left and right dont change anything. Just to be clear, I’d vote for a more progressive candidate. But they wouldn’t win in my red state. Moderates have won before though because they get a mix of voters that is larger than just right or left. And if our democracy is on the line then it isn’t time to let perfection be the enemy of progress.
If progressives keep sowing apathy for the Democratic Party then less people will vote democrat and the GOP will keep growing in power. That is, if we get to vote again, considering Trumps rhetoric.
Same here. But I don’t sow apathy for the better option because that gives voters a reason to not vote for that option and it doesn’t take a lot of voters staying home to lose an election.
Is that a talking point? If so, progressives aren’t sticking to it very well. I mean, it’s true, but only because being further left is also further populist. Progressive analysis is far more extensive than “not left enough”. What you are talking about is a straw man constructed by establishment democrats. You love sources, so show me one progressive arguing this way.
I am, because this stuff is easy to lookup, and your arguments are nothing but uncritically accepted vibes.
It’s a map of individual donors by county in the 2020 Democratic primary. The reddit link was the first to come up when I searched. I’ll find you a better link as soon as you show me a progressive saying Democrats lost because they weren’t left enough.
If I have to explain to you that Democrats doing better in elections means getting more votes, I’ll be writing fucking novels. How about using your mind just a little?
That’s a little understated. You don’t see the significance of the furthest left Democratic candidate getting through to a fox news audience as applicable to the question?
You really don’t get it and, at this point, I’m happy to just leave it that way.
You say it’s true but claim it’s a straw man constructed by establishment democrats, which is it? You’re contradicting yourself. Every thread on lemmy regarding Harris losing has someone saying it and now I can add you to the sources since you’re saying it’s true.
That’s not how the burden of proof works. You make the claim, you provide evidence to support the claim. Otherwise your claim is made up. If that needs to be explained to you then It’s no wonder you’re posting Reddit threads of screenshots with no sources as a source for your claims.
My source is the comment section of every post on lemmy regarding Harris losing. If I share an article claiming the same you’ve already primed the argument that it’s an establishment democrat straw man while also admitting it’s true.
This is how people making bad faith arguments move the goalpost. They make vague statements and when they are proven wrong they say they weren’t talking about that thing you assumed, they were referring to something else. The only way to prevent this is to call it out and make them be specific about their statements.
For that to be applicable to the question, he would have to be the only one that did it… Harris interviewed on Fox News also.
So I guess I’m not missing something, you are.
I’m sure you’re happy to run away without any sources to your claims.
It’s definitionally true that the left says the centrist should move left. That’s what makes them the left. The actual left analysis over why she lost doesn’t begin and end with wanting her to move left. As I said before, mapping voters out on a right to left spectrum is not an accurate representation of voting preferences. Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney was supposed to appeal to right leaning voters but backfired because it fed the narrative of Harris as a warmonger. Meanwhile Trump was coding himself as anti-war. The fact that Trump’s anti-war signaling was bullshit couldn’t be effectively countered because Harris had aligned herself with right wing war mongers. She damaged herself with the very same right leaning voters that she was trying to appeal to. Likewise with bragging about support from Wall Street and the nation’s CEOs. The theory that doing so would appeal to right leaning voters was misguided because populists on the right hate those people. Harris made herself the candidate of the wealthy, the deep state, and the status quo, everything that Trump has successfully branded himself as opposing. The left is used to Democrats leaning right because that’s been a constant since at least Bill Clinton. But Harris making rightward moves that damaged her with right leaning voters was insanity. The Democratic establishment lives in a bubble that hasn’t changed it’s modeling since the 90s.
Asking for evidence to a claim is fine, but not when done in bad faith. First of all, I am not the only one here making claims.
Second of all, you are nitpicking half the links I gave, while ignoring what you can’t nitpick. You made no acknowledgement of that Pew study at all. I supplied my proof, and my complaint was for having to cast pearls before swine and the shitty way you went about asking for it without providing any evidence of your own claims, or even arguments as to why your claims should be believed.
As I said, I’ll be happy to find a better link for you on the fundraising map, as soon as you start providing some evidence for your own bald assertions. It’s not going to be a one way street.
Well, you would know bad faith arguments, but that’s hardly applicable in this case. We are talking about how Democrats perform in elections so there is no reasonable ambiguity when I refer to Democrats “doing better”. That’s the last I’m going to say on this dumb side argument.
An interview is not a town hall, and I didn’t just say that Bernie did a town hall on Fox, I linked to the video. Unlike Harris’ interview, the town hall included a right leaning audience that was responding well to left leaning arguments, which directly addressed what you asked me to address.
If you want to move the goalposts and look at just election results, that’s fine. Look into how many voters who split their ticket between AOC and Trump, and what they said when interviewed. You can find your own links until you start supporting your claims with something other than repetition.
No republicans I know have referred to Harris as a warmonger but I have heard complaints from progressives about her stance on Gaza. So your comment implies that her campaigning with Cheney backfired by costing her votes from progressives. Which reinforces what you claim to be an establishment democrat narrative: that an increase amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris in 2024. So you’re contradicting yourself again.
Again, I’ve only heard complaints from progressives about her stance on the war in Gaza. In my experience republicans only complained about the money being spent in Gaza and Ukraine because they were told that was the cause of inflation.
Since the 90s there have been 9 presidential elections and democrats have won 5 of them. It makes perfect sense for them to continue with at least some of the strategies that have earned them the majority of elections.
How is asking for evidence done in bad faith? By doing so I found out that there was some truth to your claim that people on the further ends of the political spectrum tend to be more engaged.
Also I found out that there was no credibility to your claim that “we” know how to reach people and that democrats can’t be interested.
I pointed out that a screenshot of a heat map with no legend or any of the required information like quantity of donors or quantity of donations posted on Reddit, is not evidence of anything. That’s not nitpicking. That’s telling you what you should already know.
The Pew study showed that people furthest left and right on the spectrum were more politically engaged. They defined that as taking more about politics and being more likely to vote. Your claim was that the further left someone’s ideology the more likely they are to vote and vote democrat. I acknowledge the Pew study supports that they are more likely to vote but it doesn’t say they vote democrat, they are just as likely to be voting 3rd party.
What bald assertions are you referring to? I told you why I claimed that progressives didn’t show up to vote for Harris. I acknowledge that it is based on anecdotal evidence. You reinforced that anecdotal evidence by saying it’s true.
Yes, this isn’t my first day on the internet. For that reason I am familiar with bad faith arguments. “Doing better” could imply a better approval rating, more progressive policies, higher voter turnout, winning over more republican voters, winning over more progressive voters, earning more seats in Congress or the house and on and on. I didn’t even put effort into all the different things “doing better” could refer to but you’re getting upset because I’m calling out a common tactic in bad faith arguments.
That “right leaning audience” sure did like his response about trusting scientists when it comes to corona virus and climate change. So the opposite of how a right leaning audience would respond. I live in a red state and there were political ads at this time of politicians killing Dr. Fauci. Those politicians won. This audience is far from “right leaning”.
Even Fox News’s Bret Baier Admits Harris Outsmarted Him in Interview
None of this supports your claim that progressives know how to win over the disengaged voters in the middle of the ideological spectrum.
This supports my point about the Pew study you shared: the farthest left voters are more likely to vote, just not necessarily for democrats.
Which brings us full circle back to my original point. A remarkable amount of progressives didn’t vote for Harris.
Split ticket voters offer some bracing lessons for the Democratic Party
There’s the evidence to support the claim.
You still haven’t supported your original claims.
Trump - JD Vance - Joe Rogan - Glenn Greenwald - Newsweek
Liz Cheney is far more hated by the right than the left. (A flaw with the left from my perspective.) BTW: I’m still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that progressives didn’t show for Harris.
And every time the Democrats move to the right, so do the Republicans. That is the process that got us to Trump so, no, I don’t think any sane person would look at where the country is today and pat the Democrats on the back. Aiming to be just a bit better than the Republicans just gives the Republicans space to be even worse. In the last 3 presidential elections, Democrats were so ineffective that they lost to Trump. The working class of this country has been on a steady downhill road for the last 50 years, and the messaging Bill Clinton used doesn’t work anymore.
Also, in at least one of those elections, Obama was the upstart populist candidate. Both Hillary and McCain were establishment candidates in that election. Obama then went full establishment as soon as he won, but his next opponent was Romney, who was also an establishment candidate. I don’t expect the Republicans to be running another milquetoast establishment candidate for a long time. It could even be argued that Bill Clinton ran as a populist for at least his first run, then moved to the center just like Obama. Reagan absolutely ran as a populist.
I literally explained this immediately after I said it.
That’s literally what the Pew study showed. Your unfounded and ridiculous argument that they vote Republican notwithstanding. You could argue that they disproportionately vote for third party candidates but, since the libertarian party regularly outperforms the greens, progressives are far more loyal than the right. Anyways, third parties were clearly irrelevant this cycle, so now you have to pretend progressives are voting for Republicans.
So, “just trust me bro”. Anecdotal evidence, especially filtered though a partisan hack, is worthless.
Funny how you assume that AOC/Trump voters are progressives voting for a Republican and not conservatives voting for a progressive, or liberals voting for a conservative and a progressive. The only reason you assumed the first is because it reinforces what you already believe. A rational analysis would consider the possibility that there is some other factor at play than ideological self identification. If you actually looked into the interviews done with these voters you would have seen the answer. They aren’t progressive, or liberal, or conservative. These are the voters I described before who don’t even think about politics until right before an election, then vote based on vibes. I guarantee that you know a lot of these people. Their choice was made on the populist-establishment spectrum, not the left-right spectrum. When people’s lives are shit, it’s populist messaging that gets their vote.
You think establishment Democrats would be more popular without criticism from progressives, but you actually have it wrong. This is a populist age and you can’t just make voters love the establishment, at least not without putting them in camps for brainwashing. With no populist left messaging, people aren’t just going to swing to the establishment. They will go populist right. At least with a populist left making noise in the Democratic camp, people have a reason to think that Democrats hear them. There is at least a hope that the Democrats will address their problems. Establishment Democrats think bragging about a great economy just tells people they aren’t seen. Even a con-artist like Trump seems like a better choice than just being invisible. When Democrats address this at all, it’s with a throw-away line in a speech and crocodile tears. People need a narrative. Trump gave them one, and Harris didn’t. Republicans nurture their populist base, while Democrats try to suppress theirs.