You're viewing part of a thread.
-
Trump - JD Vance - Joe Rogan - Glenn Greenwald - Newsweek
The context was voters calling Harris a warmonger, not republican mouthpieces.
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.
The graph on you link is blocked by a pop up so I’ll have to take your words for it. In my experience though yes this is anecdotal voters were most influenced by inflation. Which is supported by these polls. Hated or not I don’t think she had a net negative result on the outcome.
And every time the Democrats move to the right, so do the Republicans.
Democrats have since started working with progressives like AOC and Bernie which is a move to the left. But you aren’t the first I’ve seen to claim otherwise by saying democrats have moved right.
In the last 3 presidential elections, Democrats were so ineffective that they lost to Trump.
Trump lost in 2020 and also lost the popular vote in 2016…
I literally explained this immediately after I said it. You said I was nitpicking them because I pointed out that the Pew study didn’t support your claim and the other source was a screenshot on Reddit aka not credible in any way. Then you claimed I didn’t supply a source for my claim despite the fact that I did. All this to accuse me of arguing in bad faith and use that as an excuse to not supply sources for your claims even after I have.
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.
The pew study only showed that people on the farthest ends of the political spectrum were more likely to vote. It doesn’t support your claim that progressives voted democrat in 2024.
The example you brought up of voters in AOCs district who voted for Biden and AOC in 2020 but voted Trump and AOC in 2024 reflects that.
So, "just trust me bro". Anecdotal evidence, especially filtered though a partisan hack, is worthless.
There isn’t conclusive evidence to support every claim. As long as we admit when we are referring to anecdotal evidence then we are arguing in good faith. That’s what I’ve been doing. You refuse to do that and want to treat your opinions and assumptions as fact.
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.
There isn’t enough evidence to go into that much detail. But based on this:
Ocasio-Cortez is one of the Democrats from across the country who performed better than Vice President Kamala Harris in districts where voters appeared to approach the ballot with an a la carte sensibility. That is, they voted across party lines and supported candidates who seemed to have diametrically opposing agendas. A member of the left-leaning group of members of Congress known as “the squad” Ocasio-Cortez was surprised to see her New York 14th congressional district swing heavily toward Trump even as voters there showed strong support for her candidacy. In 2020, Trump won 22% of the vote in AOC’s district compared to Joe Biden’s 77%. Harris did not fare nearly as well. Support for Trump jumped to 33%, and support for Harris dropped to 65%.
Support for Trump jumped to 33%, and support for Harris dropped to 65%.
AOC is left leaning indicating her supporters are too and in her district her supporters increased their votes for Trump in 2024 compared to 2020 and decreased their votes for the democratic candidate in 2024 compared to 2020. Meaning this is an example of left leaning voters voting for Trump in 2024.
AOC is left leaning. So for her to win, her district needs to be made up of enough left leaning voters. And when she asked them to explain why they voted for Trump this response indicates they were not conservatives voting for a progressive:
While it is not the most sophisticated method of surveying voters, the responses were swift and candid:
- “…wanted change so I went with Trump and blue for the rest of the ballot to put some brakes”
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.
No, I think the 2024 election was one between fascism and the only other option which just happens to be what you call establishment democrat. I don’t care who the alternative to fascism is… they are better than fascism. And the undecided middle voters that don’t pay close attention, hear the criticisms from the left towards democrats along with the propaganda from the right towards democrats and the result was Trump winning. And if Trump gets what he wants we will never vote again.
-
Given the near unanimous reaction to the assassination of a health insurance CEO, I think the question of whether a populist message can sell across the spectrum is settled. Too bad the Democrats didn't harness that pent up anger to beat Trump.
-
There was never a question of whether a populist message can sell across the spectrum. That wasn’t even part of our conversation. By definition it will always be popular across the spectrum.
The conversation was about whether the criticism from progressives towards democrats sowed apathy in voters and whether that apathy decreased votes for democrats.
-
That started the conversation, but it's not the only thing you had wrong.
there was no credibility to your claim that “we” know how to reach people and that democrats can’t be interested.
Democrats are shit at their jobs and happy to remain so. As long as that's true, expecting progressives to ignore it is ridiculous. The unanimity behind the assassination is proof that the energy was there and the Democrats ignored over a decade of progressive advice to use it. They'll do it again too if we can't overcome institutional inertia and force a change.
The right wing spin machine exploits this anger all by itself. Without progressives, there is absolutely no Democratic message that competes with right wing noise. There would be no rush to PBS and MS-NBC, it would be a rush to Fox, Ben Shapiro, and Matt Walsh. Americans don't know much, but they do know Democrats are full of shit. Media outlets trying to hold up the Democratic facade are all losing audience rapidly. The Democratic establishment is an unsellable product.
-
We know that GOP run ads to paint democrats in a negative light. They do this because it sways the opinion of voters to not vote for democrats. To pretend that that same cause and effect doesn’t exist when progressives do it is delusional.
If progressives knew how to reach people then they wouldnt be a minority in our government. Let alone a minority inside of the Democratic Party that you claim they are better than. But they are. Because they don’t know how to reach people. Making your claims inherently false whether you want to admit it or not. So you will continue to be wrong about that until progressives hold the majority of positions in our government.
The unanimity behind the assassination of the UnitedHealth CEO is just a sign of how bad our healthcare system is. Democrats are the only ones who have made improvements on our healthcare system. Unfortunately they weren’t able to do more because they had to compromise with the rest of Congress to get anything at all passed.
If progressives were any good at reaching people then they would have more seats in Congress and we would have a single payer healthcare system right now. But we don’t. Why don’t we? Because we don’t have enough progressives in Congress. Why don’t we have enough progressives in Congress? You guessed it! Because they don’t know how to reach people or win elections.
Progressives can’t even reach enough people to hold a majority inside the Democratic Party that you claim is unsellable.
-
Damn, full circle back to the same bullshit talking points. All of this has been answered. Too far gone I guess.
-
With screenshots in Reddit posts.
Let me know when progressives start winning elections.
-
I gave you everything you need to google it yourself and find the same information elsewhere, and I even offered to do it for you if you provided a link one single piece of supporting information for any of your assertions. All you did was add a new claim about inflation driving votes with a link to a page that didn't mention inflation at all. That's not the most ridiculous thing though. Nothing competes with this statement.
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.
So, you are looking at where the country stands at this moment, and your thought is "gosh, the Democrats must be doing something right!" Never-mind that wealth inequality has skyrocketed over this period of stunning Democratic success. We might lose the entire new deal over the next four years, but the presidential scorecard isn't so bad! 5 out of 9, wow! If that isn't classic Democratic delusion, I don't know what is.
Of course that's not really the Democrat's fault, because some people online criticize them. Presumably the Republicans have swept all three branches because right leaning voters never criticize Republicans or fight back at all. The Tea Party? yeah, that wasn't a thing. Republicans ousting their own Speaker in a populist uprising? Never happened. MAGA is just a bunch of fine folks who give free hand-jobs to the Republican establishment.
Republicans are winning because their base fought harder against the establishment than the Democrat base did. Despite all the whining, progressives have consistently gone easy on the Democrats, and Democrats have consistently blamed progressives for their failures. I love how you keep pointing out that Progressives have effectively gained no power in the party yet, somehow, they are the only reason the party can't get it's act together. I don't know if you're just so emotionally invested in the Democratic establishment that it's blinded you, or if you are personally connected to the consulting gift machine that runs it. In either case, good luck on your insane quest to convince the Internet to not call out what's plain as day.
-
You trying to explain that progressives are better at winning elections, while they are losing elections:
-
Progressives did quite a bit better in this past election than corporate Democrats. But I won't argue that the establishment hasn't been really successful at beating progressives in primaries. Besides being clearly true, it would hardly be fair to rob them of credit for the only thing they do well.
But, primaries are not the same as general elections. Money impacts both, but it impacts primaries far more. There is far less free media available, and name recognition can be impossible to build without it. There is also the myth that progressives can't win general elections that makes voters reticent to nominate progressives. We see it over and over where the progressive platform is preferred, but the establishment candidate gets the nomination.
Cheap shots aside, any real analysis paints a very different picture. Establishment candidates do better when they lean left. Obama ran on "change" and won in a blowout. Then he went establishment and almost lost. Lucky for us the Republicans were only running establishment candidates against him. Hillary ran establishment vs right-populist and lost. Biden ran "progressive lite" against Trump's "establishment lite" and barely won. Kamala went right against fascist-right and lost. See the pattern?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The context was voters calling Harris a warmonger, not republican mouthpieces.
Your only evidence is "anecdotal" by your own admission, but your pulling this shit? I work with a guy who's brother in law is a voter who totally thinks this, so I guess I'm right. I mean come on. Trump isn't a Republican mouth peace, he's the incoming President, and Vance is the incoming VP. This is shit they directly campaigned on because, presumably, they were under the impression that it would play with voters. Do you think Republican voters really think enough for themselves that what Joe Rogan says doesn't make a difference? Please. Just admit that you will piss on any and all evidence that contradicts your establishment worldview.
voters were most influenced by inflation
The page you linked to didn't mention inflation but I don't disagree, except that I'd say they were most influenced by their economic circumstances, and inflation was the most obvious manifestation of that issue. The inflation we had wasn't high enough to be a prime concern for voters who otherwise felt financially secure.
Democrats have since started working with progressives like AOC and Bernie which is a move to the left. But you aren’t the first I’ve seen to claim otherwise by saying democrats have moved right.
The context of that claim is important. I was talking about the last 50 years over which the Democrats have absolutely moved right. What I will agree with is that President Biden was a pleasant departure from that trend, even though Senator Biden had been one of the worst. The problem is that Harris did almost nothing to capitalize on what Biden had done. The most progressive move she made in the campaign was to bring on Walz, but then her campaign put him on a leash.
The pew study only showed that people on the farthest ends of the political spectrum were more likely to vote. It doesn’t support your claim that progressives voted democrat in 2024.
If you seriously assume that a significant number of people with enough political awareness to accurately self identify as progressives voted for Trump, then you are just delusional. The idea that the left-most voters would vote for the right-most candidate is the extraordinary claim that should require evidence. The Pew study also said they were more likely to donate and volunteer for campaigns. Do you figure they were knocking on doors for Trump too? Progressives carry the Democratic party, even after decades of the kind of bullshit your spreading.
As long as we admit when we are referring to anecdotal evidence then we are arguing in good faith.
Anecdotal evidence isn't even really a thing. Presenting anecdotes as evidence isn't de-facto bad faith, but it is when you come up with every excuse you can to ignore actual evidence.
AOC is left leaning indicating her supporters are too and in her district her supporters increased their votes for Trump in 2024 compared to 2020 and decreased their votes for the democratic candidate in 2024 compared to 2020. Meaning this is an example of left leaning voters voting for Trump in 2024.
Your logic is, let's say, imaginative. AOC is a progressive and progressives (in her district) vote for AOC. It does not follow from that statement that everyone who votes for AOC is a progressive or generally left leaning. Aside from being progressive, AOC is also an anti-establishment populist. It makes perfect sense that an anti-establishment voter would vote for AOC and Trump - especially if they are low information voters.
“…wanted change so I went with Trump and blue for the rest of the ballot to put some brakes”
What exactly makes this candidate look left leaning to you? This is a classic low information voter response. "Last time I hit the blue button and didn't get a cookie, so this time I tried the red button". There is no ideology here. It's all vibes. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats had messaging that connected with this voter, so they made a Pavlovian mechanical choice.
No, I think the 2024 election was one between fascism and the only other option which just happens to be what you call establishment democrat...
Let's not confuse what the election was about from a consequences standpoint, and what is was about from an electoral narrative standpoint. I am in perfect agreement with how consequential this election was. My only disagreement is with the implication that it's just me calling Harris an establishment Democrat. That's just a statement of fact, not something controversial. There was no primary process that made her the candidate, in either 2020 or 2024. The party (and therefore the establishment running the party) placed her in that role.
And the undecided middle voters that don’t pay close attention, hear the criticisms from the left towards democrats along with the propaganda from the right towards democrats and the result was Trump winning.
If you take the criticisms from the left out of that sentence, those voters are just left with propaganda from the right. That's not going to be any better. If they are hearing criticisms from the left, then they are almost certainly hearing criticisms of Trump and the Republicans from the left, as well as good things about the Democrats. Biden's campaign did a far better job than Harris' campaign at acknowledging criticisms from progressives and promising to work with progressives once elected. It looked like the Harris campaign was moving in that direction with the Walz pick, but from the convention on she was more like Hillary than Biden in this regard.
You presumably want the left to continue voting for, donating to, and knocking on doors for Democrats, but you don't want the left to speak up when the Democrats oppose them. That's just not realistic, never-mind fair. From a left perspective, neoliberals are not our compatriots. At best establishment Democrats are untrustworthy allies. Our intention is ultimately to replace them in the seats of power. We exist as a critique of the Democratic establishment, and they are our adversaries more than anything else.