• Nevoic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Exit polling does not signal the same thing, again you’re just repeating your incredibly naive point. As you admit, money is in politics, and you hand wave away that fact even though it’s a massive point.

    With corporate interests in play, constituent preferences have had literally 0 impact on policy in Gaza. I’m not questioning the ability to gather the data, but you’re conflating the ability to gather data with the want to listen to preferences. Again, naive. This isn’t how the world works. Democrats don’t just listen to their constituents, they actually rarely do.

    I’m going to keep this comment short because you keep hand waving or ignoring 80% of my point with non sequiturs, so I’m going to take this way slower so you can hopefully keep up.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Exit polling does not signal the same thing, again you’re just repeating your incredibly naive point.

      If progressives vote for another party, the additional message that the Democratic party hears is, we will never be able to win these people’s votes. This is the same message they hear when progressives do not vote at all.

      As you admit, money is in politics, and you hand wave away that fact even though it’s a massive point.

      It has no bearing on this discussion. How much impact we have relative to corporations does not change the fact we have impact. Not to mention corporations wouldn’t be trying to get rid of our impact if we didn’t have any.

      I’m going to keep this comment short because you keep hand waving or ignoring 80% of my point with non sequiturs, so I’m going to take this way slower so you can hopefully keep up.

      These are not substantive points nor, I would assume, a core part of your argument, so I did not spend significant time in my argument addressing them. However they were there, so I wrote a response in my argument.

      With corporate interests in play, constituent preferences have had literally 0 impact on policy in Gaza. I’m not questioning the ability to gather the data, but you’re conflating the ability to gather data with the want to listen to preferences. Again, naive. This isn’t how the world works. Democrats don’t just listen to their constituents, they actually rarely do.

      Cynicism isn’t an argument. Biden has delivered on numerous policies people want. The Build Back Better bill is one such achievement. However this sentiment in your argument flies in the face of the fact that policies are determined by what voters want. There is no doubt that corporations have an outside influence in our elections since Regan’s presidency. That trend is directly responsible for the rise of fascism today. However, pretending we have little to no impact when we do is exactly what corporations want and it would be inherently self defeating to disempower ourselves for no reason.

      This gets us back to the topic at hand, whether or not progressives would be better off allowing Trump to win. This is what we are discussing and what your argument in your last comment attempts to distract from. We are decidedly worse off in 2028 if we choose to silence ourselves now out of fear that Biden is an inadequate candidate for delivering a progressive agenda. By making ourselves heard, in a meaningful and impactful way, by voting Democrat, we are acting in the most optimal way to advance progressive causes.

      In order to have more progressive candidates in 2028 we must drive the Democrat Party to the left. To drive the Democrat Party to the left, we must demonstrate that a substantive voter block exists on that end of the political spectrum. By not voting, Democrats will determine Biden was too progressive. They will respond with a more conservative candidate. This feedback loop will continue until Democrats win an election and believe they have reached the American Overton window.

      As an example, after two terms of Regan and a term of Bush Senior, Bill Clinton and the Democrats decided to stop fighting Republicans on economic issues. They decided to embrace neoliberalism because they believed it was within the American Overton window. If we want to counteract this, the Democratic Party needs to see that there is a path to victory by courting progressive voters. In other words, if we want a more progressive Democratic candidate in 2028, we must vote for the most progressive Democratic candidate we have now in 2024. edit: typo

      • Nevoic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        the additional message that the Democratic party hears is, we will never be able to win these people’s votes

        The message Democrats hear from someone who voted Democrat in 2020 and Green in 2024 is that that person will never vote Democrat?

        Your position is becoming incoherent and exhausting. Stop arguing in bad faith. Your entire fucking comment is just endless shit like this, so I’m going to take it even slower and walk you through all this shit. Address the above paragraph, then we’ll move on to the next point, and hopefully after we’re through 3 or 4 of your nonsense points you’ll reconsider your position without me handholding you through it.

        If you want to help me, just say “yes I understand I was wrong on that point”, then I can easily jump into the next point without addressing some new incoherent shit you throw at me.

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          The message Democrats hear from someone who voted Democrat in 2020 and Green in 2024 is that that person will never vote Democrat?

          If progressives refuse to vote for the most progressive president we have ever had then the Democratic Party will conclude that they will not be able to win progressive votes in future elections. They will shift to the right in an attempt to capture more conservative voters.

          Your position is becoming incoherent and exhausting. Stop arguing in bad faith. Your entire fucking comment is just endless shit like this, so I’m going to take it even slower and walk you through all this shit. Address the above paragraph, then we’ll move on to the next point, and hopefully after we’re through 3 or 4 of your nonsense points you’ll reconsider your position without me handholding you through it.

          My argument has a consistent position. Trump winning in 2024 would be disastrous for progressive causes. My argument refuted your argument’s central point. Now all that is left in your argument is ad hominem attacks. edit: typo

          • Nevoic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            If people who voted Democrat in 2020 decide to vote for a candidate that is further left than the current fiscal conservative, pro-genocide Democrat, they will conclude that they have to become more progressive to win back the votes of the people who have literally demonstrated that they’re willing to vote Democrat.

            It’s absolutely easier to get a person who voted Democrat to vote Democrat again than to get someone from the Trump cult who has been voting Republican for 40 years to defect.

            • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              The Green Party has no chance of winning. There is no difference between a vote for a third party and not voting for the purposes of counting votes between Biden and Trump. So, the Democrats will not see the difference between a progressive who voted for Biden in 2020 and then voted Green Party in 2024, and a progressive who voted for Biden in 2020 and then didn’t vote in 2024. As far as the Democrats are concerned, both voters threw their vote away, because the votes didn’t go to a candidate who had a chance at winning. As long a we have first-past-the-post voting, American elections will be a zero-sum game between Republicans and Democrats.

              If progressives vote Green Party in November they will still be out numbered by moderates. The Democratic party is going to look at the larger group of moderate voters and the smaller group of progressive voters. They will decide it’s not worth risking the larger group for a smaller group who may never vote for them no matter how progressive they are.

              Not voting for the Democratic Party because they weren’t progressive enough isn’t a feedback loop the Democrats are going to want to engage with. The Democrats could be more progressive in 2028, but they still weren’t progressive enough, so progressives still won’t vote for them. Progressives didn’t vote for the Democrats in 2024 and then the Democrats became more progressive in 2028, so why should progressives ever vote for Democrats? It’s an optimal stopping problem of when to stop not voting for Democrats. The loop has no optimal stopping point because progressives keep getting rewarded by not voting for the Democratic Party so the optimal strategy for progressives would be to never vote Democrat forever.

              The Democratic Party doesn’t want to be a progressive party or a conservative party, it wants to be the party that wins by representing the largest group of voters possible. If progressives want the Democratic party to be a progressive party, then progressives have to vote for them in the general election. That will prove there is a block of progressive voters that the Democrats can cater to if they move to the left.

              https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservatives-moderates-tie.aspx

              Conservatives and moderates still tied as largest ideological groups

              Liberals remain the smallest group at 25%

              Republicans’ and Democrats’ ideological identification unchanged

              Interestingly, the Democratic Party specifically has about a fifty-fifty split between moderates and liberals. It’s not clear what percentage of liberals would consider themselves progressives. But based on how the word liberal is throw around here on Lemmy among progressives it would seem to indicate that being a progressive and identifying as a liberal is not a 1:1 match.

              https://www.vanderbilt.edu/unity/2023/04/07/first-ever-vanderbilt-unity-poll-reveals-52-of-maga-republicans-believe-vladimir-putin-is-a-better-president-than-joe-biden/

              Only about 18 percent of the American public (and 38 percent of all Republicans) identify as MAGAites.

              This number could definitely have gone up a bit, since last year. I would assume it has yet to reach a majority of conservatives identifying as MAGAites.

              People throwing their votes away to third parties isn’t how political parties judge where to move on the political spectrum. The Republican Party looks at the MAGA voting block, that do no make up a majority of conservatives but keeps voting for Trump, and they move further into fascism in response. This is true whether Trumps wins or loses, by the way. Trump lost in 2020, but Mitch McConnell endorsed Trump this year because Mitch is a coward and the MAGA voters keeping voting for Trump.

              This should be true for Biden as well. Even if Biden loses, but their is a high voter turnout among progressives for Biden, Democrats should see that a core part of their voter base is progressives. The Democrats should want to cater to progressives in that case, where progressive voter turnout is high for Democrats. Are the Democrats bad at communicating this? They sure are, because back in 2016 and now in 2024 people are accusing the Democrats of thinking their entitled to votes. If MAGA voters can drag the Republican party to the right despite being not being a majority of the Republican voter base, then progressive voters can drag Democrats to the left despite not being a majority of the Democratic voter base.

              • Nevoic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                The difference between someone who doesn’t vote and someone who voted Democrat in 2020 and Green in 2024 is you know two facts about the latter person that you don’t know about the former:

                • they are willing to vote Democrat in some circumstances

                • they prefer far left policies

                You can play dumb all you want and pretend these facts aren’t true, but that doesn’t change the reality of the situation, no matter how many words you write to overcomplicate the issue.

                • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  they are willing to vote Democrat in some circumstances

                  It tells the Democratic Party that the voter voted for Democrats in the past. They get the same information from someone who voted for Democrats in 2020 and then did not vote in 2024.

                  they prefer far left policies

                  It’s not just far left policies, it’s further left than the Democrats are currently offering. And more to the point, it’s different policies than what the Democrats are currently offering. That’s true of any vote for any third party or nonvoting. It’s not useful information to the Democrats, because the Democrats want to chase mainstream voters and people who vote for them. They have no interest in being a fringe party for fringe voters who they have to chase by surrendering a larger block of voters that they need to win. If progressives want to be catered to by the Democratic Party, a typical mainstream political party, they need to vote for them. That’s what typical mainstream political party’s do. They choose policies based on their constituents views.

                  no matter how many words you write to overcomplicate the issue

                  There is a lot more to write on this issue than a few words. However, comments are deceptive in their length on the screen. My last comment takes a little over three minutes to read out loud, based on what I timed with my computer. Given this topic, I think that’s a fair length to read. But, I don’t exactly cover a lot of ground, although I do attempt to tie my argument in my last comment to my central point. I take the time to elaborate on my position, not to over complicate the issue, but to provide clarity on what I mean. I’ve attempted to address what I think are natural counter arguments based on our discussion.

                  For example, the implication that your argument keeps trying to raise is that, by progressives voting green, Democrats would see there are progressive voters, who are move progressive than the Democratic Party is currently. The idea being that Democrats could then choose to move to the left to capture those votes. This reasoning is flawed and this becomes apparent when we continue to look ahead at future elections. My argument in my previous comment covers this so I’m going to repost it here.

                  Not voting for the Democratic Party because they weren’t progressive enough isn’t a feedback loop the Democrats are going to want to engage with. The Democrats could be more progressive in 2028, but they still weren’t progressive enough, so progressives still won’t vote for them. Progressives didn’t vote for the Democrats in 2024 and then the Democrats became more progressive in 2028, so why should progressives ever vote for Democrats? It’s an optimal stopping problem of when to stop not voting for Democrats. The loop has no optimal stopping point because progressives keep getting rewarded by not voting for the Democratic Party so the optimal strategy for progressives would be to never vote Democrat forever.

                  In short, if progressives are rewarded with a more progressive Democratic Party later by not voting for Democrats now, progressives should never vote for Democrats in order to keep driving the Democratic Party to the left. The Democrats are not incentivized to engage with this feedback loop because they never get any votes from progressives. So, if progressives want the Democratic Party to be more progressive, they need to vote for Democrats. The Democrats will see progressives voted for them and adjust their policies accordingly. This will undoubtedly attract more progressive voters, which is a feedback loop that both progressive voters and the Democratic Party benefits from. Since this feedback loop creates the proper incentives it is what the Democratic Party will engage with.

                  • Nevoic@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    The feedback loop spoiler idea only works if there are literally no material goals, only an idealist goal to move towards progressivism. This isn’t how reality works.

                    Not supporting genocide is a large material goal, and the Israel/Palestine conflict wasn’t at the worst it’s ever been in 2020, but it is in 2024. The material goals changed. In 2020 the biggest issue I was aware of was stopping fascism in America. Now that doesn’t even come close to stopping the ramped up genocide, that happened as a direct result of the endorsement of Israel by the Biden administration.

                    I would vote for a Democratic candidate that wants to end the genocide. Sure, they can still be a corporate boot-licking liberal. Biden was in 2020 and I still voted for him because the material outcome I wanted was satisfied.

                    It is not satisfied in 2024. The Palestinian genocide is far more important now, as it’s happening literally faster than any time in history. You claim that leftists have some idealist goal to just move Democrats to the left, so a refusal to engage with these leftists is the only option Democrats have, but this ignores a massive difference between socialists and fascists, socialists are materialists and fascists are idealists.

                    It’s a disingenuous portrayal of how leftists actually think. I suspect you’re conflating socialist thought with fascist thought either because you’re a liberal or because you’re unfamiliar with socialist theory. Either way, it’s worth getting more educated, the extreme left does not function the same way the extreme right does, and you seem to think it does.