It didn’t actually have any effect on 2016. Even if every single Jill Stien voter had gone to Clinton, she still would have needed to win over 50% of Gary Johnson’s voters to win.. Since it’s pretty unlikely that half of the Libertarian party’s votes were from disaffected leftists, no, the protest vote did not cost Hillary the election.

Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren, and Ayanna Pressley. What representatives do you have at your beck and call with your amazing volunteering skills?

I call my Senators and my rep all the time. I tell them I’m a voter in my district and I care about X. They’ve never once asked me if I voted for them or how much money I gave them.

LOL, what? Are you high? No, they’re not going to listen to you if they have your vote already; why would they work for it if they already have it? And if they only tried to appeal to people who already voted for them, then they wouldn’t spend all this time and energy trying to appeal to moderate conservatives, would they? Why aren’t they ignoring them, and instead only ignoring the left?

And you think they’re going to listen to me if I give them money? How much money do you think I’m giving them? Do you think I have a super pac? What do you think the conversations are in DCCC headquarters are like? “Hey guys, I know that the financial-services sector gave us $462 million in 2020, but @pjwestin just donated $50, and he’d like us to reinstate Glass-Steagall, maybe we should listen to him?” Like, Christ, maybe in deluded for thinking enough third-party votes will scare them, but at least I’m not naive enough to think I can negotiate with someone by giving them everything they want upfront.

You can only know that with accurate polling, and accurate polling doesn’t exist.

C’mon dude. You really think California is gonna go red this year? Grow up.

lol, and I cannot stress this enough, lmao.

I mean, I’m represented by Ed Markey, Elizabeth Warren, and Ayanna Pressley, so…it’s not not working. It’s certainly better than voting for Democrats unconditionally while I whine about the electoral college and first-past-the-post polling.

If you live in a state that has even a slight chance to go red, yes, you should vote for Kamala. But if you live in a comfortably Blue or Red state, you should vote for the party that best reflects your ideology. I always vote for the farthest left candidate because I think that if my representatives see a strong third-party showing for a left-wing ideology, it will make them think twice before they pivot to the center.

You:

Wikipedia agrees with me

Wikipedia:

Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole or certain social hierarchies…Ideologies considered to be left-wing vary greatly depending on the placement along the political spectrum in a given time and place…In addition, the term left-wing has also been applied to a broad range of culturally liberal social movements, including the civil rights movement, feminist movement, LGBT rights movement, abortion-rights movements, multiculturalism, anti-war movement and environmental movement as well as a wide range of political parties.

Anyway, we’re done here.

You are welcome to disagree with it, but your definition is not shared by Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, or Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia Britannica comes closest to agreeing with you by saying that, “Socialism is the standard leftist ideology in most countries of the world,” but it does not limit its definition of the political left to socialist and communist ideologies, and it certainly doesn’t say, “Left wing means ending Capitalism, not just 'reigning it in.” So maybe next time, before you jump into someone’s comments to tell them they’re using a word wrong, check if they’re actually using it wrong or simply using it in a way that doesn’t align with your personal beliefs.

I’ve run out of ways to say this, so I’ll just reiterate it one more time and be done with it; the meaning of left-wing is not that rigid and will vary based on context. It does not specifically mean revolutionary or anti-capitalist. It generally means a set of social or economic principles aimed at creating a more egalitarian society, but what that means in terms of policy will depend greatly based on the culture and system of government in place. Do I think it sucks ass that the American liberals are considered left-wing in the U.S.? Yeah. Do they meet my definition of left-wing? Fuck no. But I don’t get to define that broad term based on my personal standards.

Right. So, you want to take the term, “left-wing,” which has held different meanings in different contexts over more than two centuries and redefine as exclusively anti-capitalist, so you can tell liberals that they’re not actually left-wing. Now that’s an attempt to shift the Overton Window.

Left-wing has always had a loose, relative meaning, and arguing otherwise isn’t attempting to stop the Overton Window from shifting. It’s just an attempt to gatekeep who gets to be a, “real,” leftist.

…and Sanders himself defines Democratic Socialism as the completion of the New Deal reforms, not a gradual transition to a socialist economic system. There’s a difference between the Overton Window shifting and a gradual change in definition over generations, but if you want definitions to remain entirely static, then we’re both using left-wing incorrectly, as it’s, “real,” definition is opposing monarchy’s veto power over parliament.

“Left-wing,” is a very broad term. In the Weimar Republic, yes, the left-wing alternative to right-wing populism was communism. In America today, Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders are the left-wing alternative. If that doesn’t fall in line with your definition of, "left-wing,’ that’s fine, but it most people wouldn’t define it as exclusively anti-capitalist ideologies.

Then you’re a good person, which is a statistical minority. Most people will never intentionally vote against their economic self-interests by raising their own taxes (although you can trick them into voting against their economic self interests; Republicans have been doing that for years by using racist dog-whistles to attack entitlement programs and pushing discredited trickle-down economic theories).

Actually, youth turnout is pretty high right now, with record turnout being set recently for both midterms and presidential elections. In 2020, turnout for the under thirty crowd was 50%, a possible new record, and it was 30% and 27% in 2018 and 2022 respectively, which are 30 year highs. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party leadership prefers centrist candidates, and frequently puts its thumb on the scale to ensure that moderate candidates win, so that turnout isn’t translating into progressive politics.

Funny enough, just after I made the original comment, I read an article about how the youngest U.S. voters are starting to lean further right than before, so it’s possible the ship has sailed on this all together. Given how aggressively the right wing has been to trying to indoctrinate young voters, who are watching Democrats successfully suppress left-wing populism while Republicans embrace right-wing populism, it’s possible the youth are deciding that the far-right offers them only chance for change. I hope not, though, because then we’re screwed.

Oh yeah, that’s definitely why older folks are socially conservative, although usually when I hear people say this (and definitely in the context of this meme) they’re talking about becoming fiscally conservative.

Honestly, that makes sense to me. It seems like when economic systems start breaking down for people, they turn to populism. It’s either left-wing populism, which argues for reigning in the excesses of capitalism, or right-wing populism, which scapegoats minority or immigrant groups. Right now, the youth in the U.S. are interested in left-wing populism, but right-wing populism (AKA Trumpism) is the only thing making it into the political mainstream.

Whenever people say that you grow more conservative when you get older, they’re working from the premise that you’ll grow more affluent and comfortable later in life. For Americans, that just isn’t true anymore. Wages are mostly stagnant, home ownership is much less attainable, and cost of living is at an all time high. Yet for some reason, pundits just can’t figure out why millenials aren’t getting more conservative as they age, or why zoomers appear to be following this trend.

This is stupid and petty, but it is very satisfying to see he’s still stuck on this nearly 3 weeks after the debate.

Most people are referring to the fact that boomers were born into the strongest social safety net in American history and then allowed Regan to gut it for short-term gains. The original aphorism may not be true, but I can’t think of a generation it applies to more.