• BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      So we should vote for them because they’re out of touch with so much of the country that they’re ineffective?

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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?

          • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            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.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              You brought up 2 centrist politicians as examples of moving left. That’s not an argument.

              • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                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.

    • Saint_La_Croix_Crosse@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          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.

          • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            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.

            • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              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!”