You two seem to be somewhat talking at cross purposes.
As far as I can see, what they’re saying is that the Dem candidate needs to apeal to Dem voters and those who could be persuaded to vote Dem, to ensure their vote. If Biden turns enough of them off and they don’t vote he risks losing. On the other hand dyed in the wool Republican voters probably can’t be turned, so there’s no point trying to apeal to them.
You seem to be saying that not voting for Biden, despite him being unpopular, risk letting Trump in. That is also true, and it is vital that Trump is stopped, they’re just pointing out that that is easier if Biden listens to his base, rather than population wide surveys.
Read this guys words and you’ll see he’s just throwing words around trying to stir things up.
I said that the Left doesn’t have an overwhelming majority, and he disagrees. A few lines later he says that the GOP has a lock on 50% of the overall vote.
I think you’re significantly misunderstanding whst they’ve said, or at least I get something entirely different from it.
The two of you seem to actually agree on almost everything, including that the Dems don’t have an overwhelming majority (I can’t see where they’ve said otherwise anyway). You seem to be saying that people should vote Dem regardless of what they’re doing, which they, and I agree with. They’re trying to point out that a) the Dems probably can’t win over solid Rep voters, and that trying to by making policies that would appeal to them risks alienating the Dem base, and more importantly swing voters and b) making policies that appeal to the Dem base and potential swing votes, despite the fact they might further alienate Rep voters is likely to result in a larger voter turnout for them.
A lot of the things Biden is currently doing seem to be aimed at trying to get Republican voters on-side, but are quite unpopular with the Dem base. Precisely because they don’t have a large majority losing any voters could be catastrophic.
The two parties, and their presidential candidates, are fairly evenly balanced in votes at the moment, both with a solidly entrenched core, a periphery of less commited voters, and the swing voters inbetween the sides. The candidate that wins is likely to be the one who loses fewest of their periphery voters and alienates the fewest swing voters. Making policie to try to ‘poach’ voters from the other party’s core is a lost cause, but might cause some of your potential voters to stay home even if they don’t vote Rep.
, but might cause some of your potential voters to stay home even if they don’t vote Rep.
And it makes a lot more sense to get those people off their butts and vote then it does to change 75 years of US policy quickly.
We still have an embargo with Cuba, and the Cold War ended decades ago.
If people think they are too moral to vote for biden, tell them to look up the former slaves and women who were working for candidates back when they weren’t allowed to vote. None of the people they backed could promise to change things, but they knew slight progress was better than none at all.
Oh I absolutely agree that making sure people actually vote is important, and it’s something a parties supporters can do. You can bet that Republican voters will be pushing each other, and Dems need to be just as dedicated. The thing is, that’s a whole lot easier when your candidate is saying and doing things you agree with, and not doing stuff you abhor. That’s the nit the party and candidate have control over and should be tuning. It wouldn’t be easy to make big changes, but even more moderate changes would be helpful. Biden seems to finally be changing his tune on Isreal a bit at the moment, the question is whether he’s irreconcilably alienated too many voters already, or if he can win them back.
Expecting people to vote for Biden despite disliking his policies because the alternative is worse is logical, but might, I fear, be excessivly idealistic. The more Biden and the Dems listen to their base the easier this will be.
The issue is some people really support the horrible shit Biden is doing, and if the Dem candidate won’t do it, then they’ll vote Republican.
It happened when Obama managed to beat Hillary in 08. Moderates had a movement to vote Republican over Obama, and they did.
They were just statistically insignificant and Obama had a landslide win that flipped multiple red states and got us the House and Senate.
It’s really really hard to get Dem voters to compromise their morals though, moderate Dems need someone horrible they can stand next to and say “we have to stop them!”.
The issue is it didn’t work in 2016, barely worked in 2020, and by all indications won’t work in 2024.
We know what works. But the DNCs corporate donors would prefer a Republican to progressives. So they donate huge amounts during a primary and by the time it’s the general there’s no way for them to lose.
But this is something that is easily searchable and was an absolute huge news story…
If most people have already forgotten about it, maybe that’s the disconnect I’ve been experiencing? Why people don’t realize how much Dems have changed in the last three cycles?
They just genuinely don’t know what it was like before trump?
That actually makes a lot of sense, and honestly I should have thought about that.
Before we can get people on board with what we should do, we need to make sure they’re aware of what has happened. People don’t understand how much they’ve lost over just a few decades.
Yes, one person is exactly the same as a mass movement. The subject got headlines because she was rare.
You were trying to imply that after Obama got the nod there was a mass migration from the Dems to McCain, and that loss was only made up by a massive Left tsunami that had sat out the primaries.
During the campaign, there was significant media discussion of Democratic Hillary Clinton voters backing McCain, in particular members of People United Means Action (also known as PUMA, originally standing for “Party Unity My Ass,” and also known as “Just Stay No Deal”) and those sympathetic to it.[40] After Clinton’s June 8 concession, 40% of women who supported Clinton described themselves as dissatisfied and 7% described themselves as angry; 25% said they would support McCain in November.[41]
Polling data
According to Gallup Polls from June 9 to August 17 McCain’s cross-party support fluctuated between 10% and 13%. In the poll for August 18 to August 24 support for McCain among Democrats peaked at 14%. From October 13 to October 19 polls showed McCain’s support among Democrats to be 7%, which was the lowest thus far.[42] The CNN exit polls placed his Democratic support at 10% with the same percentage for liberal support. These results may not represent the general voters due to early voting.[43]
According to exit polls on Election Day, McCain won the votes of only 10% of Democrats nationwide, the same percentage of Democrats’ votes that George W. Bush won in 2004.[5]
Or the poll it referenced? I linked that too
You were trying to imply that after Obama got the nod there was a mass migration from the Dems to McCain,
Nope, I said:
It happened when Obama managed to beat Hillary in 08. Moderates had a movement to vote Republican over Obama, and they did.
They were just statistically insignificant and Obama had a landslide win that flipped multiple red states and got us the House and Senate.
Like, it seems the issue is your drastically underestimating how disproportionately moderate party leads represent the very very tiny percentage of Dem voters who are “moderate”. The moderates are not the bulk of the party, they never were.
But to be honest, it doesn’t seem like you’re interested in actual talking about this, you keep trying to turn this into an argument…
According to exit polls on Election Day, McCain won the votes of only 10% of Democrats nationwide, the same percentage of Democrats’ votes that George W. Bush won in 2004.[5]
So, literally no mass movemnet by “Moderates” trying to screw over the Left.
I don’t want to talk about it because it’s meaningless.
You two seem to be somewhat talking at cross purposes.
As far as I can see, what they’re saying is that the Dem candidate needs to apeal to Dem voters and those who could be persuaded to vote Dem, to ensure their vote. If Biden turns enough of them off and they don’t vote he risks losing. On the other hand dyed in the wool Republican voters probably can’t be turned, so there’s no point trying to apeal to them.
You seem to be saying that not voting for Biden, despite him being unpopular, risk letting Trump in. That is also true, and it is vital that Trump is stopped, they’re just pointing out that that is easier if Biden listens to his base, rather than population wide surveys.
No.
Read this guys words and you’ll see he’s just throwing words around trying to stir things up.
I said that the Left doesn’t have an overwhelming majority, and he disagrees. A few lines later he says that the GOP has a lock on 50% of the overall vote.
I’m surprised he hasn’t blocked you yet. Givessomefucks likes to do that when people confront him.
I’ll just ignore him going forward. Thanks
I think you’re significantly misunderstanding whst they’ve said, or at least I get something entirely different from it.
The two of you seem to actually agree on almost everything, including that the Dems don’t have an overwhelming majority (I can’t see where they’ve said otherwise anyway). You seem to be saying that people should vote Dem regardless of what they’re doing, which they, and I agree with. They’re trying to point out that a) the Dems probably can’t win over solid Rep voters, and that trying to by making policies that would appeal to them risks alienating the Dem base, and more importantly swing voters and b) making policies that appeal to the Dem base and potential swing votes, despite the fact they might further alienate Rep voters is likely to result in a larger voter turnout for them.
A lot of the things Biden is currently doing seem to be aimed at trying to get Republican voters on-side, but are quite unpopular with the Dem base. Precisely because they don’t have a large majority losing any voters could be catastrophic.
The two parties, and their presidential candidates, are fairly evenly balanced in votes at the moment, both with a solidly entrenched core, a periphery of less commited voters, and the swing voters inbetween the sides. The candidate that wins is likely to be the one who loses fewest of their periphery voters and alienates the fewest swing voters. Making policie to try to ‘poach’ voters from the other party’s core is a lost cause, but might cause some of your potential voters to stay home even if they don’t vote Rep.
And it makes a lot more sense to get those people off their butts and vote then it does to change 75 years of US policy quickly.
We still have an embargo with Cuba, and the Cold War ended decades ago.
If people think they are too moral to vote for biden, tell them to look up the former slaves and women who were working for candidates back when they weren’t allowed to vote. None of the people they backed could promise to change things, but they knew slight progress was better than none at all.
Oh I absolutely agree that making sure people actually vote is important, and it’s something a parties supporters can do. You can bet that Republican voters will be pushing each other, and Dems need to be just as dedicated. The thing is, that’s a whole lot easier when your candidate is saying and doing things you agree with, and not doing stuff you abhor. That’s the nit the party and candidate have control over and should be tuning. It wouldn’t be easy to make big changes, but even more moderate changes would be helpful. Biden seems to finally be changing his tune on Isreal a bit at the moment, the question is whether he’s irreconcilably alienated too many voters already, or if he can win them back.
Expecting people to vote for Biden despite disliking his policies because the alternative is worse is logical, but might, I fear, be excessivly idealistic. The more Biden and the Dems listen to their base the easier this will be.
New York Mayor Ed Koch had a great line.
“If you agree with me 51%, vote for me. If you agree with me 100%, see a psychiatrist.”
The issue is some people really support the horrible shit Biden is doing, and if the Dem candidate won’t do it, then they’ll vote Republican.
It happened when Obama managed to beat Hillary in 08. Moderates had a movement to vote Republican over Obama, and they did.
They were just statistically insignificant and Obama had a landslide win that flipped multiple red states and got us the House and Senate.
It’s really really hard to get Dem voters to compromise their morals though, moderate Dems need someone horrible they can stand next to and say “we have to stop them!”.
The issue is it didn’t work in 2016, barely worked in 2020, and by all indications won’t work in 2024.
We know what works. But the DNCs corporate donors would prefer a Republican to progressives. So they donate huge amounts during a primary and by the time it’s the general there’s no way for them to lose.
Have you got any source for that at all?
Sooooo many.
It’s not a secret, it was openly all over the place back in 08.
But I feel old realizing some people just weren’t politically active back then.
Here’s a pre election poll
https://news.gallup.com/poll/105691/mccain-vs-obama-28-clinton-backers-mccain.aspx
Here’s a post election article
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-were-those-clinton-mccain-crossover-voters/
Here’s a pre election article
https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/clinton.backers/index.html
Here’s the Wikipedia article on it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_and_liberal_support_for_John_McCain_in_2008
But this is something that is easily searchable and was an absolute huge news story…
If most people have already forgotten about it, maybe that’s the disconnect I’ve been experiencing? Why people don’t realize how much Dems have changed in the last three cycles?
They just genuinely don’t know what it was like before trump?
That actually makes a lot of sense, and honestly I should have thought about that.
Before we can get people on board with what we should do, we need to make sure they’re aware of what has happened. People don’t understand how much they’ve lost over just a few decades.
So, by the stories you posted yourself, there were people who switched from McCain to Obama after Obama beat Hillary.
Kind of like the 2008 election had two good candidates who respected the system and each other.
Nice try.
https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/clinton.backers/index.html
You missed one I guess
Well. At least one.
You’re hilarious.
Yes, one person is exactly the same as a mass movement. The subject got headlines because she was rare.
You were trying to imply that after Obama got the nod there was a mass migration from the Dems to McCain, and that loss was only made up by a massive Left tsunami that had sat out the primaries.
So you didn’t read the Wikipedia link either?
Or the poll it referenced? I linked that too
Nope, I said:
Like, it seems the issue is your drastically underestimating how disproportionately moderate party leads represent the very very tiny percentage of Dem voters who are “moderate”. The moderates are not the bulk of the party, they never were.
But to be honest, it doesn’t seem like you’re interested in actual talking about this, you keep trying to turn this into an argument…
So, literally no mass movemnet by “Moderates” trying to screw over the Left.
I don’t want to talk about it because it’s meaningless.