There are few things fascists hate as much as antifascist coalitions

Well said sir

Left wing people walked away from the Democrats after 1968, and they had every righteous reason to. Did the Democrats suddenly start embracing actual leftism as a winning strategy as a result? Did a viable third party emerge? Did non electoral activism (much more powerful at the time, like a massive nationwide movement) finally take hold and upend the system to bring about real, sustained change?

Not exactly. We went, in that time, from "great society" and 1-income families who owned their home and sent kids to college, and the civil rights act and all that stuff, to Reagan -> Clinton -> Bush and the fuckin apocalypse that's brought us the current corporate hellscape. The reality of working life in today's America would be unrecognizable to most (white) people in the 1960s. The Democrats, after 24 years of losing elections (ironically enough, losing them by fielding leftist candidates like McGovern, McCarthy, and Carter), finally tacked hard to the right and started being contenders again, but we lost a lot of ground and we're only just now even starting to undo the damage. The party of JFK and Carter became the party of Clinton and Obama.

I actually think modern left wing people are aware of how terrifying Trump is, and would vote for Biden even if he wasn't a significant step up from the low bar that is the modern Democrats. But yes, the drumbeat of MAGA imposters and the occasional confused leftist saying that if we just stop voting then everything will find a way to work itself out is certainly a thing that exists.

(ironically enough, losing them by fielding leftist candidates like McGovern, McCarthy, and Carter),
And when Gore and Hillary Clinton stuck their head a little bit left on climate change, they lost. And people wonder why Dems go to the center to find voters.
- I have no particular love for either of the Clintons but I'm still sad about Gore. Between the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, real action on climate change before it was too late, and the underregulation that led to the 2008 financial crash, the whole fuckin world would be different if he'd been allowed into office after he won the election.
  
  Just think how much further left we'd be if Hillary won. Instead Trump won and the Overton window went off the cliff. How'd those protest no-votes go? *They ended up being counter-productive.
  As for Bill Clinton, he learned from Carter being voted out and Reagan and Bush winning. He played the position he had to play.
- Gore won, and Hillary didn’t lose because of her views on climate change.
  Dems are bad at politics, so they “go to the center” chasing republicans. They simply don’t realize they’re already a right wing party, and are chasing the extremist republicans towards far right fascism. Or more likely, they just don’t care so long as the corporate donor money keeps flowing in.
  
  Oh we had president Gore? I must have missed that. Thanks 3rd party voters!
  Dude, Dems constantly lose Congress. They've had control of all 3 house Senate presidency for 4 years of the last 24 years. Or 6 years for the last 44 years. That's the math. So they go to the center to find votes. They don't go center just because, they go there to find votes.
  
  Unfortunely no, you’re once again incorrect.
  Gore won the election, as was proven in numerous FL recounts. However, Fox News, among other mainstream corporate media orgs, had already called the election for GW Bush. This was actually the basis the corrupt Supreme Court used to give the presidency to Dubya in Bush v Gore, and the rest was history.
  The Dems shifting to the right doesn’t have anything to do with finding votes - it’s all about finding the money. As you rightly point out, Dems are terrible at politics and lose elections when they shouldn’t. I mean just consider how reprehensible the Republican policies are, it’s so bad that Rs don’t even campaign on their platform, choosing instead to resort to divisive culture war distractions to motivate their voting base.
  In the late 70s / early 80s, Dems realized they were losing because they were being massively outspent by republicans who had been courting big business, offering them deregulation in exchange for campaign financing. In over 96% of elections, the candidate who spent more on advertising won. Dems decided their only chance to remain relevant was to become a fundraising organization instead of an actual representative political party - thus, their policies became much more conservative in order to appease corporate donors and get the money flowing into their coffers too. Of course, they never raise as much as republicans, so this strategy is flawed to its core, but this is the reality of the modern day DNC, why it is in fact a controlled opposition party, and why they consistently fail to motivate any significant number of voters. Because they aren’t chasing voters - they’re chasing money.
  
  Oh so we had president Gore? We can talk all day about recounts, but we did not have president Gore. You realllllyy don't want to deal with that huh. Probably because of the next part: it was the third party voters that cost Gore the election. Thanks 3rd party voters!
  The Dems shifting to the right doesn’t have anything to do with finding votes - it’s all about finding the money.
  Lol they want to win elections, and that means voters.
  As you rightly point out, Dems are terrible at politics
  Lol I didn't say that. At this point, well we'll see what else I'll bother replying to.
  At the end of the day, the election is won by VOTERS. All this refusing to vote in protest and voting 3rd party in protest that I see so often is what costs Dems elections. And the hilarious part is, these protest votes and protest no-votes end up being wildly counter productive. They give the election to Bush and Trump, and guess what happens to the Overton window when that happens? The whole thing moves right.
  So we're down to: What do you, the informed left wing (I assume) voter do to move things left? What you can do is vote Dems. Give them consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose they go to the center to find, wait for it, VOTES.
  
  I think your reading comprehension may be hampered by your fixation on a 2 party system. Gore won the election, but had the presidency stolen from him by the media and Supreme Court.
  In the recent elections which have had some of the highest turnout of voters over the time period we’re discussing, at most an abysmal 38% of eligible voters voted.
  Perhaps consider that it’s the misguided policies Dems maintain in order to pursue those delicious legal bribe monies, as opposed to 3rd party candidates trying to do the right thing, that are costing the Dems election results. Blaming voters for actually exercising their right to vote is wholly undemocratic.
  So, as an informed left wing voter who wishes to see more progressive policies enacted, I would pressure the Dems from the left to abandon those conservative policy positions if they want my vote. I would then vote for someone else if they maintain policies inconsistent with my beliefs. That’s how democracy works.
  
  Oh did I ruffle your feathers so you have to attack me? We did not have President Gore. You realllllyyyyyy don't want to deal with this huh. You look to blame everything rather than admit the 3rd party voters cost Gore the election.
  misguided policies Dems
  Lol Everytime they go a little bit left they lose the election. I'm clued into how you deal with that now: you try to blame everything rather than admit the voters that didn't show up.
  I think I'm right on the money with that too, because you are clearly thinking about that exact word "blame". I'm saying the voters didn't show up, or they voted 3rd party, which costs the election. You can kinda say that's blame but it's not nearly the extent you go.
  You're running around everything (Gore, policies, funding to the point you call it a bribe lol) trying to blame everything on the system or the Dems or whatever.
  Blaming voters for actually exercising their right to vote is wholly undemocratic.
  Yeah not the same as "undemocratic". This is why I think you're fixated on blame, you're now extending this to "undemocratic" so that you can blame me. Quite enlightening now that I see that.You can vote however you want. You tried something similar last time when you put words in my mouth.
  What I'm saying that if you want things to go to the left, if you want your vote to be productive, if you want your vote to move policy to the left (over time), if you want your vote to move the Overton window, then this is what you do: you vote for the Dems. If you want things to move to the left, you give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose they go to the center to find votes.
  I'll double check to see what chain this is, I gave a history that you should read. Ah l'll just give it https://lemmy.world/comment/10617871

The greatest expansion of Rights in American history came in a period where Democrats had a very strong string of victories. From FDR to LBJ Democrats dominated in this country, it was also the period in which basically everything we consider the Cornerstone of our nation was developed. It's also the period that the conservatives are trying to roll back as hard as humanly possible.

Conservatives including some Democrats.
that's at a time when democrats were republicans and republicans were democrats; things change and so do political parties and whitewashing like this suggests either shallow understanding or willful misrepresentation.
- It absolutely wasn't. This is a time when the new deal was created. This is the time when the American middle class was created. Social Security. Civil Rights Act. Voting Rights Act. All during this period thanks to the Democrats. The Republicans who left the Democratic party are those that left because they didn't like what the Democratic party was doing. The idea that both parties completely swapped places one day is an infantile understanding of that scenario.
  
  it's crystal clear from your response that you could use a refresher on your modern american history so i found this for you.
  
  So I'm you're confused your argument is that FDR did not Implement all the programs he implemented?
  
  oic now; i think i can understand our disconnect now.
  the democrats of the 1930's have less in common with the democrats of today than they have with the republicans of today. pretending otherwise is either shallow understanding or willful misrepresentation.
  
  You think the Democrats of FDR's time have more in common with Republicans of today whose sole purpose is the dismantling of everything FDR did?
  Talk about willful misinterpretation.
  
  Talk about willful misinterpretation.
  very true since you're efforts to steer the conversation away from party platforms towards a political outlier makes this clear.
  
  You think FDR was a political outlier? The man who ran the entire party for 4 terms and crafted the legislation of over a decade? That's a political outlier?
  And I guess his entire Congress was an outlier too?
  
  he's our only 4 term president; he's one of the biggest political outliers there is.
  why do you keep steering the topic away from the party platforms?
- Democrats were never Republicans or vice versa. Prior to 1964 both parties had a diverse balance of Bigots. Democrats having a large contingent of racist southern Dixiecrats. Republicans had also long been the party of fascists and Nazi sympathizers. What happened post 1964 was not a party or ideological switch per se. Democrats just ditched the bigots courting a much bigger potential voting block. Republicans having lost the chance to court the same voting block instead courted the bigots fleeing the Democratic Party. It was a concentration of bigots. Not a change of ideology.
  
  it's crystal clear from your response that you could use a refresher on your modern american history so i found this for you.
  
  That doesn't contradict anything I said. Care to try again?
  
  if you're still not understanding; you're beyond any help i can render.

And during those four years they only had a super majority that could overcome the GOPs automatic use of the filibuster for a very short period of time when Independents caucused with the Dems, and even then there were some holdouts that watered down the best parts of what they were able to get through.

It didn't work in 1968. It didn't work in 1980. It didn't work in 1984. It didn't work in 1988. It didn't work in 2000. It didn't work in 2016. It didn't work in 2020....

Yeah because they're an idiot. If you actually want to get leftists in power, the answer is to start sharpening your knives. Replace Dems with leftists in your local elections. Organize for ranked choice voting and electoral reform. Work alongside your local labor unions to generate support for pro-labor, non-establishment politicians for Senators and House Representatives.
We can keep the Democrats in power until the time comes, but there's no hope for the party. It's far more likely for the Dems to cannibalize the Republican party after the MAGA movement explodes than for them to ever reform into a serious leftist party. If we want one, we'll have to make it ourselves.
- The Left needs to study up on what the Moral Majority did back in the 1970s.
  Both Parties have local clubhouses where they decide local matters; who is going to run for dog catcher and should we put a STOP sign on Main Street? If the normal turnout for a meeting was twenty people, the Moral Majority would show up with 50. It didn't cost them an arm and a leg, and they quietly stole power from big shots like Nelson Rockefeller.
  start actually showing up where it will make a difference
  
  Bingo. If you've made it this far in the thread and are wondering what you, one person behind a keyboard, can do, it's to start going to your local town hall meetings, and to start bringing friends. The first thing you'll notice is that basically no-one is there. If you suddenly show up as a consistent group of 10-15, local politicians will start taking you seriously.
  If you don't have any friends, going to local protests are a great way to make them! There's still a few going on in solidarity with Palestine I think, but there'll always be more!
- I'm afraid you missed my whole point. Dems can't go left when they keep losing elections. When they lose elections, they go to the center to find votes.
  If you want Dems to go left, give them consistent and overwhelming victories.
  
  and you're missing the point of those dates, which is all the victories the Dems have been given. Despite them, they've always gone consistently further and further right while winning elections, because the only thing that actually motivates the Democratic party are corporate donors. It's why the party cannot be saved; it's as beholden to corporate interests as the right.
  
  What are you on about. 1968 was Nixon. 1980 was Reagan. 1984 was Reagan. 1988 was Bush senior. 2000 was Bush junior. 2016 was Trump. I don't know why they included 2020.
  Dems have only had control of all 3 (house senate presidency) for 2009-2011 and 2021-2023. They have had control for 4 years of the last 24 years. If you include Bill Clinton, then it's 6 years of the last 32 years. If you go back further then it's 6 years of the last 44 years. Those are the victories Dems have been given and it's next to nothing. You desperately need to get your facts straight.
  The next lesson: When they don't have control of all 3 (house, senate, presidency), they need to negotiate with the GOP to pass anything. And guess what, the GOP doesn't want anything to pass so they block everything. That's why Dems need all 3 to get anything done. And they've only had it for 6 out of the last 44 years.

That's some abused spouse logic. Keep rewarding the people abusing your trust? Maybe they'll recognize you this time? Maybe the reason they always go to the right is because they don't think the left will stop voting for them. Maybe they just don't care. Either way it makes no sense to reward that behavior.

Maybe the reason they always go to the right is because they don’t think the left will stop voting for them.
Maybe it's because Dems have had all 3 (house, senate, presidency) for a measly 4 years of the last 24 years. If you want to go back further then it's 6 years out of the last 44 years. That's right, Dems have had control for a measly 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years.
When they don’t have control of all 3 (house, senate, presidency), they need to negotiate with the GOP to pass anything. And you wonder why they have to meet in the middle when they don't have power? The GOP even shut down the government under Obama.
And when they lose elections (do the math, they've lost control for 20 years out of the last 24 years. Or 38 years out of the last 44 years.) when they lose elections, they go to the center to find votes. Because that's where the voters are. Every time they try to move a little left (Gore, Hilary Clinton) they lose. So what does the next guy do? He goes to the center because that's where the votes go.
You desperately need to learn what's going on.
So what do you do if you want things to go left? Give Dems consistent and overwhelming victories. Let them know that they can go left without losing like Gore and Hilary Clinton did.
- So we should vote for them because they're out of touch with so much of the country that they're ineffective?
  
  If you want the Dems to move left, you do that by giving them consistent and overwhelming victories. Not 4 years out of the last 24 years. Not 6 years out of the last 44 fucking years. I just went through the chronology with somebody else in this exact chain, take a look. https://lemmy.world/comment/10617871
  
  You still haven't said anything to explain this theory of them moving left if the left votes for them no matter what. Why would they worry about satisfying a voting block that automatically votes for them?
  
  Lol yes I did. I see you didn't read what I linked. Every now and then they try to move left, and whenever they do they lose the election. So guess what? Next election they move to the center to find voters. So guess what you can do? Make Dems win consistently and overwhelmingly so they don't lose when they go left.
  They've lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, and you're surprised they go to the center to find votes? Lol.
  
  You brought up 2 centrist politicians as examples of moving left. That's not an argument.
  
  Lol Gore did try to move left, after the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton. And guess what happened? Bam he lost. What do you expect Dems to do when the guy who just moved left lost? Seriously, what do you expect? They aren't going to move further left. They are going to go to the center to find votes. Congrats 3rd party protest voters! You taught the Dems that when they go left they'll lose the election.
  And then 16 years later Hilary goes just a tiny little, itsy bit left. Sure she's not a far left candidate, but she thought maybe she could go just that fractional, little bit left on climate change to save the world. And bam she lost the election. Thanks no-vote protestors! Again, what do you expect Dems to do? They're going to go center to find votes. They just learned again that when they go left they lose the election.
  Just think how much further left everything would be if Gore or Hilary won. Everything. Policy. The Overton window on what discussion is. The next candidate could see there's votes there and take the next step left. Instead the Overton window is now talk about dismantling the EPA, and that's because Trump won. You want to make the discussion about better environmental regulations instead of dismantling? You do that by Dems winning elections.
  You're not going to get a big left candidate without taking the small steps. The small steps means making sure the Dems win consistently and overwhelmingly. Not just president, Congress too.
- Clinton was not a move to the left! The Clinton wing is the right wing of the Democrats. Both Clintons, are the prime example of the Democrats being the Republican party of 8 years ago. And Gore would have been a continuation of Bill. Trump being the other candidate is the only reason she isn't seen as a right wing candidate. A lot of her liabilities, particularly with battleground states, in 2016 was her being the champion of every right wing policy an appreciable amount of Democrats signed on to.
  
  Ok let's go through this chronologically.
  Bill Clinton: When you run against an incumbent (Bush senior) you run from the center. You have to run center when running against an incumbent, so that's what he did.
  Gore: After the population hopefully warmed up with Bill Clinton, he stuck his head out left with climate change. And bam he lost the election. Thanks 3rd party protest voters!
  Obama: So guess what Obama learned from Gore? Don't stick your head out. He ran on vague "hope", hoping the ambiguity would be enough considering Bush's disastrous wars. And he won.
  Hillary Clinton: After the population hopefully warmed up with Obama, she stuck her head out just a tiny itty little bit with the Map Room to fight climate change. And guess what happened? Bam she lost. Thanks protest non-voters!
  On to Biden. Just like Obama learned from Gore, Biden learned from Hillary that you don't stick your head out left. And he was running against an incumbent, so once again when you do that you run center. He's actually been governing more from the left, but he ran center.
  And you're amazed that they don't run an extreme left platform? Every time they stick their head out a little itsy bitsy tiny bit left they lose. And the next guy learns to go to the center to win.
  So how do you get them to move left? By giving them victories. Consistent and overwhelming victories. Because when they lose, like they've lost 20 years out of the last 24 years, they will go to the centre to find votes.
  
  Those are extremely simplistic takes for why Gore and Clinton lost. If memory serves me right climate change didn't have much to do with either and it had more to do with people feeling they were out-of-touch wonks. Bush was "the guy you could have a beer with" even though he didn't drink.
  And they run to the center because there are actually voters there. The left is noisy online but there's not enough of us spread out far enough to move the needle. America is not a progressive country, and we need to get used to that.
  
  Simplistic because I'm not going to bother to write more. From what I know Gore was a decent step left, not just climate change. By 2016 there was enough attention on climate change that was the step left.
  And they run to the center because there are actually voters there
  This is what I say ad nauseum. But I think there are enough left ~~voters~~ people to move the needle. The problem is they don't vote in protest, or they vote 3rd party in protest. They're waiting to fall in love with a big left candidate, and I'm saying that's not going to magically appear, you need baby steps (which they don't like so they protest).
  This is the whole "Dems fall in love, Republicans fall in line". Those Republicans show up every time and they move the needle because of that.
  
  I've given up believing there's enough that can move the needle, because even if they all voted for decades they're crammed into high population states and districts so their power is diluted to ineffectiveness.
  Unless we get a mass migration to low population states of lefties this is going to be how our politics works.
  Of course when I bring this up the reaction is "But there's nothing to do there!"
  
  The Nader vote showed this is significant. Obama had a super majority. This can be done.
  
  I'm not gonna hold my breath. America is too consistently disappointing.
  
  Don't hold your breath, but vote. *For Dems.
It's more like choosing your enemy then a business transaction.

Remember Dems have only had all 3 (house, Senate, presidency) for 4 years of the last 24 years.

And when you take it to a filibuster-proof majority they have had even less control than that.

Filibuster proof majority for 4 months out of the last 44 years. Not 4 years, 4 months.
- And we got the ACA, one of the most positive, transformative laws of the last two decades. Did it go as far as we wanted? Nope, but it has changed lives for the better across the country. 4 months.

Yep. If we want far left, we need to do what the far right did. Vote consistently and persistently for wing candidates and then vote for the extreme when they chance a run.

Anyone pretending this is bad is a short sighted fool at best. We will never magically get left wing extremists. They need a foundation of left wing to build off and that means compromise and frankly if you're against this compromise you're not a leftist, you're an idealist idiot that will be played.

Except that is the opposite of how the Right works. Contrary to what Liberals tell themselves, Republican voters need to be wooed, Democrat voters fall in line. If a national Republican candidate isn't anti-abortion, the evangelicals might not show up, if they aren't anti-tax and anti-welfare, they loose "business Republicans", and they need to scaremonger about things such as immigration to rile up other parts of their base. That is why you don't have every Republican presidential candidate saying things like "Look, we have to appeal to moderate Democrats. That is why we have to expand welfare, access to abortion, and make it easier for immigrants to come in. If you believe in conservative values, he is still the lesser evil than the Democrat, despite being pro-welfare and immigration, and you only have two choices"
You are reversing the causality as why Republicans don't have the same level of "Vote Red no mater who" and voter shaming and have to keep moving right to keep their base engaged.
- Your reality bubble is incompatible with the rest of the world's. Republicans need to be placated. There is no need to follow through. They always blame others.
  Your attempt at casing the democrats as the same thing is the basis for bothsideism. All you need to do is respond with some whataboutism to determine the thickness of your bubble
  
  It's not both sides-ism. I am saying that the Republicans can't guilt-trip their voters, so they aren't constantly moving to the left and having platforms that their voters hate, relying on their only appeal being lesser evilism. It is because the Democrats need to constantly move right for their donors, and can in some respects ignore the wishes of their base through the logic of "lesser evils" that Biden can continue building Trump's border wall, try to outflank Trump on the right on immigration, and continue to support genocide, when 4 years ago, liberals could understand these policies are fascist.