r/politics • u/Hootinger • 16d ago

No Paywall Hakeem Jeffries says Medicare for all is not legislation he currently supports

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/hakeem-jeffries-says-medicare-for-all-is-not-legislation-he-currently-supports-268371525570
14.9k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

749

u/captainporcupine3 16d ago

When people point out that Dems are responsible for the elections they lose, this is the shit we are talking about. Everyone knows that these people are fake, phony, and do not care to help anyone but their corporate donors.

Personally I will always vote for Dems, but the "lesser of two evils" strategy is obviously not working after it gave us 2 terms of Trump. Get these assholes out of leadership NOW.

493

u/boring_person13 16d ago

It's why Democratic socialists are gaining in popularity and there is such a fight against them. People act like Democratic socialists are such extremists but they're just basically what Democrats use to be. The Overton window has moved so far right in the last couple of decades.

58

u/spubbbba 16d ago

Universal healthcare is a centrist policy in the rest of the world. All but the most extreme conservatives will at least pretend to support it.

Opposing it is the radical, extreme position.

-1

u/TummyTicklerSupreme 15d ago

Right but medicare for all is still one of the more "radical" plans presented compared to the rest of the world. I don't think its unreasonable to look at other options similar to germany or the netherlands which i personally think will work better in the US.

-8

u/WackyHumanSlop 16d ago

if the “rest of the world” means western europe only then sure

12

u/CoolPatrol241 16d ago

Huh? You should probably take a look at which counties in the world have universal healthcare 

14

u/Proper-Raise-1450 16d ago

No, it's the rest of the world, there are like 30 countries in the world that don't have it and most are just failed states in Sub-saharan Africa.

1

u/Beautiful_Nobody_344 16d ago

Username checks out.

105

u/iSavedtheGalaxy 16d ago

Praying LA gets someone like Mamdani in the future. Bass couldn't even get the pothole video right.

42

u/Brief_Obligation4128 16d ago

I hope the whole state gets a bunch of Mamdanis in all levels of office one day.

1

u/Beautiful_Nobody_344 16d ago

I'm not that kind of person but I would totally hang a picture of him on my wall. He's a beacon of hope.

10

u/Universe_Nut 16d ago

I don't know about LA Mayor, but I am aware that are a number of democratic socialist candidates running for midterms in the LA area. Would definitely recommend looking into it so you can keep an eye for their names come November.

3

u/iSavedtheGalaxy 16d ago

Thank you! I'm following our broader LA elections very closely and have always been supportive socialist initiatives in my community. I hope the benefits we've fought for here are expanded to the rest of LA.

In my neighborhood/municipality, free hot breakfast and lunch is provided at our local public school almost every day, open to all members of the community. Local parks were recently upgraded to include water features, cooling stations and equipment made of heat resistant materials. Public restrooms and fountains were upgraded for park enjoyers and our local service workers/delivery drivers. They regularly host free-to-enter food and music festivals at parks. Teenagers have free and affordable spaces where they can just exist. The positive impacts to the community have been immeasurable.

3

u/humperdinck 16d ago

I think LA has a city council problem more than a mayor problem.

2

u/iSavedtheGalaxy 16d ago

Agreed, that is a MAJOR factor in our local issues!

3

u/bagal 16d ago

LA has Raman in the race this Fall. I’m hoping she can beat Bass this election.

2

u/GeneralTso_09 16d ago

Don't pray. Vote! Organize with your family, friends, and neighbors. Be the change you want.

0

u/ihatemovingparts 15d ago

Bass couldn't even get the pothole video right.

Because she said "hey we heard you, we ran into a problem, here's our next steps"? Gimme a break. The pothole got fixed the next day.

-14

u/Yashema 16d ago

Mamdani only got money to fund any of his agenda by taking a one time payout from the pensions. Barely raised anything in new taxes and he needs money from the state to fill the rest of the budget gap. 

What's funny is Mamdani actually demonstrates why the Left doesn't succeed: they make big promises and fail to keep them. 

11

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota 16d ago

The fuck are you talking about, his polling numbers are even higher now because he is delivering what people want from their local government, which is to fix problems in the city like potholes and overheated subway stops. And he has been rolling out the agenda he promised.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/saera-targaryen 16d ago

Bait used to be believable lol

-11

u/Yashema 16d ago

But he specifically has failed to find his public bus initiatives, is on track to build only 30% of his promised 200,000 affordable units over 5 years (funded 12,000 for next year), he did take $2.3 billions from the pensions which he can't do next year to fund his child start initiatives.

Oh and he is also asking all departments to cut budget by 2.5%

→ More replies (5)

35

u/JesusWantsYouToKnow 16d ago

The Overton window has moved so far right in the last couple of decades.

Fucking thank you. That plus citizens united gets us these feckless performative idiots who do not represent us at all. They're scared of Mamdani because he does represent his constituents. Fucking good, let's move that window back to the fucking left and away from "tech billionaire doing Nazi salute on stage isn't career ending"

49

u/tres_desole 16d ago edited 16d ago

The worst part though is democratic voters have objectively moved left but the party itself still chooses to cater to the centrist minority

14

u/SecondHandWatch 16d ago

The party isn’t catering to centrists. It’s catering to their donors. The Democratic Party has just gotten worse since Bill Clinton promoted the “third way” of getting elected, which was just take money from more wealthy people. Unsurprisingly this shift has caused elected democrats, especially in national politics, to move to the right.

6

u/tres_desole 16d ago

They cater to the wealthy yes, but as you see in many of these replies, people tend to actually believe that by catering towards centrism you can gain republican voters. Which has proven to be a fallacy.

2

u/ihatemovingparts 15d ago

The worst part is that both AOC and Mamdani opposed primarying Jeffries. Between the two of them they got his progressive challenger to drop out. AOC couldn't be arsed to endorse her former chief-of-staff (or anyone) in the race to replace Pelosi. The entire democratic party is broken.

1

u/tres_desole 15d ago

AOC has been extremely reticent to endorse people which I don’t like lol. But I understand the rationale with Jeffries, not saying I agree with it. I took it to understand the aim is to focus on highly achievable races, essentially little fish. I’ve seen people argue that it was to essentially pull a referendum on Jeffries, adapt to the people or the next time you’re out. Although I think it’s less that and more the former.

1

u/ihatemovingparts 15d ago

Oh yeah totally. Democrats should only pipe up when they're guaranteed a win. Guess they should just avoid saying anything at all.

1

u/tres_desole 15d ago

But how else would they get people to donate 5 dollars to them every week?

5

u/Major_LeeHungg 16d ago

Its not that... 

Time has continued to pass.  Things have changed.  What was considered progressive in the 90s is considered the bare minimum today.  The DNC hasn't moved.  The window hasn't moved... The entire world did while it stayed stationary.

The DSA movement is just what it looks like if the window is anchored to the world we live in and moves with it.

In that respect the establishment democrats are conservatives... And the conservatives are regressionists now. 

43

u/saera-targaryen 16d ago

I disagree that the DNC hasn't moved. If you look at clips of Reagan on the debate stage, he objectively has immigration policy stances that are to the left of what Harris campaigned on. The DNC has measurably moved to the right on issues, not even just in comparison to the shifting reality. 

3

u/Guardianpigeon 16d ago

You don't even have to go back to Reagan, just look at how we talked about immigration during to Obama era and compare it to today.

Obama might have been "the deporter in chief", but he still talked about immigrants as if they were people and pushed for stuff like DACA. Then take a look at Kamala and she was entertaining building a wall, the thing we all said was stupid during Trump 1.

1

u/OldWorldDesign 15d ago

You don't even have to go back to Reagan

It seems like a good point to mark the democratic party's policies when they essentially decided to adopt reaganomics to court Reagan's donors

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2009/01/26/two-santa-clauses-or-how-republican-party-has-conned-america-thirty-years

-2

u/boiler95 16d ago

I’m not sure if that’s proof of the dems moving right or simply that we live in a time where saying racist shit out loud is acceptable again.

4

u/saera-targaryen 16d ago

I mean, it is the dems moving to the right even if the population moved to the right too. 

9

u/JcbAzPx Arizona 16d ago

Today's DNC would have been considered hard right by the standards of the Reagan era. To say they haven't moved while the world moved around them is just fantasy.

2

u/lazyFer 16d ago

It actually is that. The DNC has been and remains slightly center left. The voters have indeed shifted far more to the left and it may cause the DNC to shift, but that really hasn't been measurable yet

-7

u/MintyHippo30 16d ago

The DSA movement is what it looks like when populism wins. Policies that have no realistic chance of being achieved while their tankie wing does full on authoritarian apologia. There isn't a single healthcare plan on planet earth more aggressive than Medicare For All. And they don't want to implement it incrementally. They don't care who gets hurt or how many hospitals will shut down. They don't care about the logistics or even funding the financial needs for the service. It's ideology before anything else, anti-intellectual slop to the core.

9

u/tres_desole 16d ago edited 16d ago

Economists have consistently said that m4a would actually save the government 1 trillion per year. And there are detailed funding plans that you can easily look up, at least do your research lol. It would also not be the most progressive, there are several analogous models. And objectively, the benefits far outweigh the costs.

-2

u/MintyHippo30 16d ago

Universal healthcare, any Scandinavian model, or single payer ARE NOT M4A. Show me a study that actually does analysis specifically for M4A.

The difference is DSA is dogmatically tied to M4A - they won't accept anything else. There are plenty of boring, liberal dems who are pro single payer and public option - they just don't have anywhere near the votes to pass legislation.

6

u/tres_desole 16d ago

https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/universal-health-coverage-could-save-one-trillion-dollars-and-114000-lives-every-year/

This article cites a recent study and while it hasn’t been peer reviewed yet, it discusses previous studies it builds on. Also Canada and Taiwan are actually the closest models to m4a, not Scandinavian countries. The diff is the m4a would be even more comprehensive. And while it would largely get rid of private insurance, it wouldn’t necessarily get rid of private healthcare.

-2

u/MintyHippo30 16d ago

I am aware M4A is more comprehensive, which is why I referred to it as more aggressive plan than basically any other than the world. That's not necessarily disqualifying, but it's a stopper to the, "it's just easy we can do it like x country" conversation. I'll be glad to read some review of this study though.

I'm pro universal healthcare, but I'm boringly for the most efficient and effective policy and not for blind adherence to a specific model above all others. I'm also not in a rush to take the risks in completely blowing up the current system because that would expose people to even worse outcomes.

4

u/tres_desole 16d ago

If we’re being honest, there is no way that m4a would be something that happens overnight, thus “blowing up” the current system. There is too much tied up infrastructure. But that’s what platforms are- you show your ideal and ultimate goal. But in practice would it absolutely take time, and an overall transition period. Assuming otherwise is disingenuous at best.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/NoneMoreBLK 16d ago

Because a higher percentage of centrists vote in elections, and contribute more in monetary donations. They're more reliable than younger progressives, and they're committed to liberalism.

14

u/tres_desole 16d ago

That argument worked maybe 10 years ago but it no longer holds any weight. Millennials and Gen Z far outnumber older voters - the typical centrists. And the high end of millennials are in their 40s now. And we have seen time and time again that when younger voters are excited they come out in HUGE numbers. How many elections do we need to see this happen in before we stop believing that rhetoric? Because if what you’re saying is true, Dems wouldn’t keep losing so massively by only appealing to this “consistent”minority. Young voters are literally screaming at them that they would vote if they gave them a reason to.

0

u/NoneMoreBLK 15d ago

They haven't ONLY appealed to moderates, and it's weird that you're not acknowledging that -- Renewable Power, Preventing Discriminatory Mortgage Lending, Loosened Federal Restrictions on Marijuana, Went After Student Debt Traps, Fought Against Union Busting, Executive Orders for BLM, and Expanded Title IX Interpretations to Prohibit Trans Discrimination are all examples of things that should have got you excited...along with the Student Debt Forgiveness (SAVE Act).

And the Dems didn't massively lose to Trump -- the margins were tight in every battleground state, they just kept going up Trump.

-1

u/tres_desole 15d ago edited 15d ago

What about many blatantly supporting Zionism and Israel, walking back supporting minimum wage increases, in many cases supporting bans of trans students in sports (looking at you Newsom), supporting building the wall (Kamala), calling for the most lethal army in the world (Kamala), supporting fracking, many back pedaling on supporting m4a, the list goes on. For every bare min progressive thing they do they kowtow to moderates. Also, I’d wager that any loss against one of the most disliked candidates in modern history is a massive loss. And we’re seeing the ramifications of it. The margins means nothing, they still lost.

0

u/NoneMoreBLK 15d ago

Your claim was that they didn't do ANYTHING for Progressives voters, and that's just not true.

If you're expecting a party with a Big Tent strategy to reject moderates and only appeal to Progressives as if they have heavy representation across all districts (when they don't), then I'd wager that you either don't know anything about governing; or you're just an opp.

Newsome didn't support an outright ban on transgenders competing sports, he's just aware of how a transgender person could have an undue advantage that goes against the fairness that sport is supposed to be about. AND EVEN IF HE DID, that'd be one exception out of 20 states (all Dem controlled) that don't have a legal ban. Which is a MAGA-level overgeneralization to attack the whole party over what one state does.

A "massive" loss describes a failure or deficit that is huge in size -- like a large total vote discrepancy between two parties, district by district.

A "crucial" loss describes a failure, no matter how small, that results in widespread or total collapse -- like Clinton winning the popular vote, but losing the electoral college to Trump. Small margin of defeat, huge consequences.

You can't say the margins mean nothing when we're talking why moderates are still represented by the Democratic Party, when Biden and Kamala won the majority of moderate voters (one winning, one losing). They matter to the party just as much as Progressives do...which sucks cause y'all are ideologically opposed to one another right now.

1

u/tres_desole 15d ago

I never made that claim but ok. I also never said that they only needed to appeal to progressives. And again, sorry, a loss is a loss. Losing to a shitty candidate that has led us to where we are today is massive. And trying to “well actually” this doesn’t change our material reality. We are in a MASSIVE shitstorm because of losing strategies, largely to the consistent need to appeal to centrists while alienating your own base.

-5

u/redlaWw 16d ago

The problem is that close to the center, you can pick up moderate republicans. Up to a limit, the hard-left will still vote for you because they don't really have an alternative, tactically speaking, so the strategically better position is to be as close to the center as you can without causing the leftmost tail to give up and split off into their own party.

EDIT: Though I don't quite agree with this perspective for the US personally. I believe that a more principled US left party would motivate some of the non-voting bloc, which is another way out of this situation.

8

u/tres_desole 16d ago

Except they haven’t achieved that. If that were the case we wouldn’t be in this situation.

-2

u/redlaWw 16d ago

Or it means that the people they're trying to reach for are still further over to the right and they're feeling the pull from their increasingly disillusioned left wing, so they can't go further over but can't quite reach the people they're aiming for.

7

u/tres_desole 16d ago

Which just shows that it’s a losing strategy. Why court voters who aren’t going to vote for you when your base, the people who want to vote for you, are making clear demands. Ironically, the DNC loves to use polling as a strategy but polling consistently suggests there is a break between voters and the party. If you want to win, aim at ensuring everyone on your side votes. Stop trying to court right wing people who rather vote Republican than Republican lite, while also alienating those who would have supported you.

0

u/Clueless_Otter 16d ago

Because those people are largely going to vote for you anyway. Courting them can't make them vote for you "harder." Everyone still only gets 1 vote. Are there some small number of extreme left people who didn't vote for the Dems because they were too far right? Sure, probably. But if the Dems went up there and said we need to make Israel not exist and nationalize every company, they're going to lose way more votes to the right of them than they gain from these extreme leftists.

Centrists, and even slightly-right people, do vote for Democrats sometimes. It's not as if they're a monolithic group who will never, ever vote D and it's completely pointless to appeal to.

Democrats lost to Trump twice because they ran two terrible candidates that no one liked. Notice how they beat Trump the time they ran a reasonable candidate.

0

u/ParticularFew4023 16d ago

The moderate wing of the fascist party who last election brought out Liz Cheney and touted Dick's endorsement and got a whopping 5% of the republican vote (to Trump's 4% of dems) ISN'T FAR ENOUGH RIGHT. Americans have to be the dumbest people on the planet, whether they support this shit or don't understand it; this is why it's not possible to vote our way out of this.

4

u/GeneralTso_09 16d ago

The establishment is not afraid that DemSocs will fail, they are terrified they will succeed and the masses will see there is a better form of governance.

Once people understand that government can provide them something they expect it. See Social Security; despite the GOPs 40 year fight against it, even their own base won't let them end it.

Mamdani is really crushing the establishment's "better things aren't possible" narrative. And they will downplay the pot hole filling, subway fans, and temp water fountains before the heatwave, as not really important. But to the people living in NYC this is showing them the govt can respond to their daily needs.

2

u/Beautiful_Nobody_344 15d ago

He's a beacon of hope and I hope more follows in his footsteps.

15

u/exoriparian 16d ago

It was Clinton that started this whole DINO trend. Anti gay, racist dog whistles, and anti "welfare abuse".  Pretty much all the talking points of a Republican but he also played the saxophone.

7

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[deleted]

4

u/exoriparian 16d ago

Just because you support the DINOfication of the party doesn't mean that's not who started it.

4

u/wavewalkerc 16d ago

Yep. The Schumer type of incompetent Democrat politicians are more responsible for the rise of the DSA than anyone else.

1

u/PathosEatsLogos 16d ago

Yep DSA = the New Deal

1

u/rasa2013 16d ago

Some of them are pretty dumb and unserious. The big ones we are hearing about are the ones winning, and it isn't a coincidence they're not running on the national platform. 

Granted, the DSA grew quickly and the leadership at the national level didn't used to matter. I can believe the leadership of the DSA are not the best, just the most ideologically motivated. 

1

u/AggressivelyMediokre 16d ago

I’m Canadian and even Canadian conservatives believe in Medicare for all lol

It’s such a no brainer that unfortunately I don’t think will happen in America in my lifetime

1

u/Straight_Number5661 15d ago

Tbh I think it would be better for folks with DSA proclivities to brand themselves as FDR/New Deal Democrats rather than pushing the socialist label.

0

u/Shifter25 16d ago

and there is such a fight against them.

Is there?

-12

u/AnonAmbientLight 16d ago edited 16d ago

The DSA gains popularity because the voters are upset and want fighters, but they don't know how government works, and don't really pay attention. So someone coming along and saying, "Yea, I'll do all the things you keep asking for" is appealing.

But reality is a fickle bitch, and if those folks gain power, they're going to be pretty disappointed that reality is quite different than what they assumed. But the people that supported them will likely never understand that, so they'll primary the people they once championed, and go more extreme.

Just like MAGA.

Edit: I'm getting downvoted because people are upset that I'm right. Take Mamdani, and throw into Google if whatever "new" and "super progressive" policy is unique to just him doing it.

You'll find more often than not, it's just what the fucking mayor of NYC does. Even disgraced Eric Adams did shit like that.

Scaffolding removal? Eric Adams policy.

Fixing up public spaces and parks? Eric Adams policy.

I mean, why is it that no one knows these things? Literally 5 seconds Googling it will tell you.

9

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-5

u/AnonAmbientLight 16d ago

And DSA already have Zohran to show that it works.

And he is doing a lot of shit that most mayors do and people are acting like it's some kind of new beginning for Democrats.

Which proves the point that lots of folks don't know how government works and don't pay attention. :)

0

u/Beautiful_Nobody_344 15d ago

You're so close, you almost understand it.

-2

u/HockeyHocki 16d ago

When did mainstream democrats believe private corporate ownership was bad? Or prisons? Or borders? Just nonsense. Mainstream democrats always believed in capitalism, The DSA flat out reject it

2

u/PM_Me_Your_Kinks369 16d ago

Democratic Socialists are not against private ownership or prisons or borders. Capitalism has come a long way since the days you're referring to. We have had long enough since the WW2 boom to see how Capitalism eventually leads to horrific levels of corruption and abuse.

Democratic Socialists would not get rid of prisons. They would push for economic and education opportunities to communities most at risk of going into prison. They would also OF COURSE aim to fix the absolutely abhorrent, completely indefensible nature of policing in 2026.

Democratic Socialists would not get rid of borders, WTF?? They would push for citizenship pathways that don't take 20 years and respects sane deportation processes. Someone needs to be deported? OK, figure out what country they are from. Send them back THERE not to CECOT where they're tortured and killed.

In general, Democratic Socialists prioritize policies that better society even if it means less profits for the already wealthy. They stand for things like Universal Healthcare which is less expensive per capita in every single country on Earth. Would insurance companies make less profit? Absolutely....and that's a wonderful thing.

Would workers have more rights? Absolutely....and that's a wonderful thing.

Would workers be entitled to more of the value they create for a company? Absolutely....and that's a wonderful thing. In fact, it forces the incentives of the owner class to be aligned with the workers. That's an efficient way to make your workers more productive is to actually have the workers benefit when there are record profits rather than firing them whenever a company wants to temporarily boost their share price 0.5%.

-1

u/HockeyHocki 16d ago

what do you mean wtf, I'm quoting the co-chair of the DSA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHMs3RQPtWg

4

u/PM_Me_Your_Kinks369 16d ago

You know how the Republicans have different wings within it? Some are more centrist and some are hardcore right wing that are genuinely trying to make the Handmaid's Tale come true. As a political entity, there is internal push and pull. As a country, that party is tempered by people on the Left and that's literally just how a good society runs.

The middle ground is where policy typically happens.

Democrats are already center-right. The middle ground between center-right and far-right is somewhere close to far right, you know?

Now, when the opposite of far-right is far-left where is the middle ground? Actually centrist with some policies on one side vs. another. That's a good thing.

There are real Americans who do want the crazy far left shit. I don't agree with some of that but I see where they're coming from, as misguided as I think some of it is. The majority are simply "Left".

Zohran Mamdani has shown what a Democratic Socialist can look like and low and behold the people are incredibly receptive to competent governance and actually doing things for regular people. He might be able to chip away at the brazen and abhorrent corruption inherent to NYC Capitalist institutions but it's a hard fight given the might of all that money and political capital. It's a fight worth slowly taking to them considering EVERYTHING WE SEE BEFORE US ON A DAILY BASIS!

Long story short, Megan Romer is part of the Marxist-Leninist section. Alright. Some of those policies I agree with and some I don't. Her actual words about these policies I'll bet you didn't really sit with, though.

1

u/HockeyHocki 15d ago

How centrists could theoretically moderate the more wacky far left positions is pure speculation. She is speaking for the DSA and she is telling us their position. To sit there saying 'WTF' when we repeat what their own leaders are telling us is bonkers

93

u/ChadEmpoleon 16d ago edited 16d ago

Seriously. Yes, the American people are to blame for electing Trump.

It is hard for me to fault the apathetic non-voters when the opposing party runs on,

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ “No, we will not improve your lives. Vote for us to maybe possibly keep things from getting worse. Idk, we’ll see.”

43

u/Nekrabyte 16d ago

Not to mention in over 40 states being a non voter is EXACTLY the same as being a voter because the electoral college makes votes worth more depending on where you live.  Add 400 million Democrat voters to my state and it would literally change nothing.

16

u/illegalcupcakes16 16d ago

This is what has been driving me insane when people go on about the non-voters. Republicans have such a strong super majority in my state that Dems would need to have historical turnout to flip an election. My "vote" went to Trump three times even though I have voted against him three times, and if he runs in 2028 (unconstitutional, but we don't need to pretend they care about that document), it will be four out of four.

11

u/elbow8075 South Dakota 16d ago

While I want to choke them, I assume the people on here that blame nonvoters for all their problems are just immature children, no different than the MAGA cheerleading clowns.

2

u/Nekrabyte 16d ago

110%. I wish I could upvote you thrice.

1

u/OldWorldDesign 15d ago

I assume the people on here that blame nonvoters for all their problems are just immature children

There is a role in those people not participating in probably the most important selection of party officials: primary elections. Not all of these seats are contested, but many are and if more eligible voters actually participated we wouldn't have so many sedentary corporate stooges. In most of the country voter engagement for primaries is below 30%.

That is something to condemn voters for. Having the opportunity to shove off incumbents not doing their job and refusing to participate.

1

u/Sea-Initiative-3398 15d ago

It's always been silly to me as it just makes me think there doing the thing centrists often accuse progressives of. of like pie in the sky thinking or whatever.

One cannot mind control the apathetic, one can control how there party appears to the public and comes off as.

3

u/lazyFer 16d ago

The non voters in any state could shift the power dynamic of they actually voted...but nope, they do nothing and bitch about both sides while patting themselves on the back for being so whatever they feel makes them superior to others

2

u/Nekrabyte 16d ago

Which state are you referring to? Do you have any numbers to back that up? Because my state has voted straight blue for like 40 years, and I fail to see how the election results from my state being exactly the same as they are now would "shift the power dynamic".

2

u/OldWorldDesign 15d ago

Do you have any numbers to back that up?

Texas had historically strong voter engagement in the most recent primaries. That 'strong' was 53%, which is pathetic

https://texpolls.com/turnout

A state is lucky to see even 20% vote, so it's no wonder why corporate stooges who do very little get elected when voters don't show up to the primaries to tell the candidates whom they feel is least qualified.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/press-release/voters-dont-participate-primaries/

3

u/bentbrewer 16d ago

Most turnout for any state is around 60%, there are a few with better turnout - very few. If the non voters voted for one party, it would definitely change the winner in all but a very small number of states (these states are either Dem or independent). https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_elections

Non-voting is a vote for the winner. Period.

1

u/LordCharidarn2 16d ago

Would it change the winner if all the non-voters voted for the winning party?

Assuming 100% of non-voters would vote for your preferred candidate definitely seems like a way to drive yourself crazy on election night. But you do you.

1

u/lazyFer 15d ago

WE DON'T FUCKING KNOW BECAUSE THEY DON'T PARTICIPATE

See? That's the fucking problem. Well, except they still fucking bitch and moan while not actually doing the one fucking thing that gives them a voice.

They've proclaimed to the world IGNORE ME

1

u/LordCharidarn2 15d ago

And yet you won’t ignore them. And I don’t see people who claim they didn’t vote bitch and moan, they are probably still as disconnected as they were before, just keeping their heads down and trying to get through the day.

What I do see is a bunch of people bitching and moaning about people who didn’t vote ‘supporting Trump’. Thought experiment for you, if every Trump supporter had decided not to vote last election, would Trump have won the election?

If you say ‘no’, than it seems reasonable that not voting for Trump is not supporting Trump, correct?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Nekrabyte 15d ago

That math doesn't math, my man.

0

u/fred11551 Virginia 15d ago

There are more nonvoters in Texas than democratic and Republican voters combined in Texas. Nonvoters absolutely are to blame. They could swing any election they want.

11

u/rayword45 16d ago

Every time someone goes off about the non-voters being "just as much to blame" as actual Trump voters, I ask them how the fuck a non-voter in Alabama or Massachusetts is as to blame as a non-voter in Pennsylvania. They NEVER have an answer.

I also point out how their argument doesn't even make mathematical sense.

4

u/Unctuous_Robot 15d ago

Harris was a few hundred thousand votes away from winning the electoral college.

0

u/rayword45 15d ago

That doesn't change anything about my point that blaming non-voters in states like Alabama or Massachusetts at the same level as non-voters in actual swing states is fucking stupid.

3

u/Unctuous_Robot 15d ago

And yet I live in a swing state and your comment is still visible.

4

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/rayword45 16d ago

So does that mean everyone who didn't vote in 2020 is a Biden supporter? Or does this non-logic only go one way?

Also, you clearly missed the entire point of my comment, which is how the electoral college means that your vote is functionally worthless if you live in one of the ~43 non-swing states

0

u/fcocyclone Iowa 16d ago

I will say that those people who didn't vote in non-swing states could have at least affected things downballot. A few votes swung the other way would have been huge in blocking things like his "big beautiful bill" that gave huge bonuses to ICE.

Trump is awful but his damage has been multiplied by having a compliant congress

2

u/rayword45 15d ago

I largely agree with you, but nobody who writes smug, self-fellating comments about how non-voters are "just as much to blame" as Trump voters are doing so in reference to anything other than the Presidential election.

Based off this singular comment of yours bringing up a salient point that is wholly ignored whenever non-voters are discussed, I'm inclined to believe you're intelligent enough to recognize that.

3

u/LordCharidarn2 16d ago

So Choosing to vote for Trump makes you a Trump Supporter. And… not voting for Trump makes you a Trump supporter?

By this logic, isn’t a non-voter also a Harris supporter? Are non-voters voting twice, in your opinion?

0

u/Beautiful_Nobody_344 15d ago

It's an odd time to be alive. I'm a Trump supporter because I was too depressed to get out the house to vote, I'm a transphobe because I still listen to Harry Potter on audible, and I'm racist because I say things like "nip it in the bud" (I'm still confused on that one).

1

u/carbonqubit 15d ago

It's non-voters or 3rd party ones in swing states who are to blame from a realpolitik perspective. The bigger problem is the Electoral College, which, if dissolved, would allow everyone's vote to be weighted equally.

Someone who lives in Wisconsin has a massive advantage over someone who votes in California because each state gets two senators, and Wisconsin has a much smaller population. It's a fundamentally undemocratic design.

0

u/Sea-Initiative-3398 15d ago

It's just stupid in a smug centrist sense too.

Like again, you cannot control every person who votes. What can one control. the policies, how one comes off and so on.

2

u/tipjarman 15d ago

400 million? What state is that?

1

u/Kanin_usagi 16d ago

There are more things to vote on than just the presidency. Local and state elections are also important, and dumbasses don’t vote for those either

6

u/Nekrabyte 16d ago

We were talking about voting for Trump. I vote in every election, including Primaries. That doesn't negate the fact that vote is entire worthless for presidency, which was the topic of the conversation. If we were talking about Congress, I wouldn't have said my vote was worthless in that context. Context my man.

5

u/rayword45 16d ago

You know DAMN WELL that when people are raging about non-voters they are specifically referring to the presidential general election.

0

u/Grandpa_No 16d ago

When the opponent says, "I will do stupid shit and make your life worse just like last time" then yes, it's on the voters. There are two options on the table and voters and non-voters are choosing between the two whether they're smart enough to realize it or not.

4

u/TehWackyWolf 16d ago

Calling them stupid will win the votes this time!!

We can't learn

-3

u/Mickey_McDoofus 16d ago

Yes, because coddling and appeasing deplorables is working SO well. Fuck that, let them take their medicine.

6

u/BannedSvenhoek86 16d ago

You understand the point of contention being discussed is that the Democrats DON'T CODDLE OR APPEASE people more left than Jeffries right?

I would love to live in a world where they actually tried doing that even one time. They haven't.

-6

u/rabbitlion 16d ago

It has been tried over and over and it works well in solidly blue districts and states but when you have closely contested elections you lose the center voters and republicans get the seat.

5

u/guamisc 16d ago

It has been tried over and over

lmfao, no it hasn't. Don't lie.

0

u/TehWackyWolf 16d ago

The people who aren't voting are now deplorable?

Holy fuck double down again. Call them a slur.

0

u/Mickey_McDoofus 15d ago

A non-vote is a vote for the GOP, so yep...deplorable.

0

u/TehWackyWolf 15d ago

Lmao. Keep losing elections and crying about it then. If you won't make any compromise, you'll not have any friends. Been begging for days for the left to be calm and less Nazi like .

Been getting hate for it constantly despite voting exactly how you want me to. Lmao.

0

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota 16d ago

Oh no, what are they going to do about it, vote next time?

1

u/TehWackyWolf 16d ago

Probably not. Just like last time..

How's that working out for us? It went well when we told potential allies that we hate them? We're winning and a Nazi didn't?

-1

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota 16d ago

Probably not. Just like last time..

Then there's no problem.

-5

u/AnonAmbientLight 16d ago

You have the choice between a room that is slightly uncomfortable with a buzzing light, and a room that has razor blades that cut you until you die.

Why do you have to sell you on the first room?

13

u/ChadEmpoleon 16d ago

Because they have the option to not choose.

When presented with two choices they don’t want, some people will just opt out of participating. That’s why dems need to court voters. Running on not being the worse option clearly doesn’t work.

-4

u/AnonAmbientLight 16d ago

Because they have the option to not choose.

You actually don't because if you decide not to choose, a room will still be chosen for you.

That's how every election works. I don't know why people say this btw. Because if the analogy is that the rooms represent choices in the presidential election, you still get the president whether or not you participate.

11

u/ChadEmpoleon 16d ago

“I don’t know why people say this btw.”

Because that’s how it is. We can reason all we want to about why we must vote even if unenthusiastically. I know I get it.

Others don’t. Even if it’s to their detriment.

Patronizing them a fourth time over it won’t get them on our side. Why not try a different approach where you give them something to vote for.

-7

u/AnonAmbientLight 16d ago

Because that’s how it is.

No, it isn't lmfao.

If you decide not to vote, someone still becomes president and they still get to do all the things they said they were going to do to you.

You don't escape the responsibility nor the outcome by not voting.

Pick a sandwich, or one will be chosen for you to eat. And you will eat it.

9

u/ChadEmpoleon 16d ago

“We can reason all we want to about why we must vote even if unenthusiastically. I know I get it.

Others don’t. Even if it’s to their detriment.”

2

u/BannedSvenhoek86 16d ago

Look, I'm not always trying to be that guy in these threads, but you need to understand that there is a multi million dollar operation that has been ongoing for over a decade to pay people to post stuff like he just did. It's part of the playbook to make arguments like that, where it's like they don't even pay attention to anything aside from one line to hyper fixate on and debate as if that's the encapsulation of your entire argument. Its so common on this board and I've seen it so much that those comments are basically glowing to me when I read them. It's unfortunately a pretty effective way at steering the narrative towards the path they want while winding you up to the point you seem unreasonable.

Dont bother. You made your point well, let the bot/operative get the last line in and don't waste your sanity.

And before I hear it, it's not about them disagreeing, it's about the way they disagree. It's basically trolling, the entire point of what they are doing is trying to make people that are actually passionate about their country seem like crazies while the milquetoast person that never let's their emotions show seems like the reasonable and diplomatic one.

1

u/AnonAmbientLight 16d ago edited 15d ago

Look, I'm not always trying to be that guy in these threads, but you need to understand that there is a multi million dollar operation that has been ongoing for over a decade to pay people to post stuff like he just did.

Lol, lmao even.

Would we have been better off under Harris instead of Trump?

If the answer is "yes", then why the fuck did people pick Trump, who said he was going to do everything he is doing right now?

And why did people decide they'd leave it to chance by not voting?

And fair warning, the answer is only "yes, we would have been better off under Harris." so it's a bit of a trick question.

Edit: This is what I am talking about. If you can’t even acknowledge that we’d be better off under Harris, then you didn’t fundamentally understand what the stakes were in the 24’ election and so have no business in this conversation.

Which is why they saw their way out. Appreciate that.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AnonAmbientLight 16d ago

So why do I have to sell you on the first room?

Why is it my fault when people decide that the second room is the one they want, and people who could have picked the first room and had it win decided they wanted it to be a toss up?

4

u/rayword45 16d ago

If you live in one of the vast majority of states that isn't a swing state your choice for president is completely worthless

0

u/AnonAmbientLight 16d ago

Neat.

Doesn't prove my point wrong in the slightest, does it?

It's also not what he was suggesting, but thank you for your comment.

5

u/captainporcupine3 16d ago

We can fight all day about WHY people should have to be convinced to vote for the lesser of two evils. At the end of the day they still have to be convinced. So your options are to get to convincing them, or give up and let the fascists win. You pick.

0

u/AnonAmbientLight 16d ago

We can fight all day about WHY people should have to be convinced to vote for the lesser of two evils

No, it's a good discussion to have, don't you think so?

Should it have not been obvious to anyone with a functioning brain and able to have a single thought that the room with the buzzing light is the better choice of the two?

People picked the guy that said he was going to tax them for no reason (tariffs).

Why are voters not smart enough to know what's good for them?

How can you hope to win the next election when seemingly the voters are not picking choices based on logic and reason?

3

u/LiveChocolate8819 New York 16d ago

You're really out of touch with what the average nonvoter cares about, and Americans don't care about institutions and election integrity as much as you think they do.

You're not going to convince someone to carve out time on a Tuesday to stand in line and choose between "I keep working long hours at a job I hate for not enough money" or "I keep doing all that but maybe we keep some other rights that don't really affect my material conditions."

1

u/AnonAmbientLight 16d ago

You're really out of touch with what the average nonvoter cares about, and Americans don't care about institutions and election integrity as much as you think they do.

Trump said he was going to raise taxes on everyone via tariffs. If you're a nonvoter and don't care about institutions or election integrity, surely you care about your wallet...right?

0

u/move_machine 15d ago

If I have to spend the rest of my life in that room, like I do my country, I will take the razor blade room, please.

1

u/AnonAmbientLight 15d ago

If I have to spend the rest of my life in that room

Nope. Only have to spend four years in the room.

So you're choosing death rather than being slightly annoyed, which is fucking insane lol but you do you boo.

Hope you feel better. You belong. You are loved.

0

u/lazyFer 16d ago

Fuck that. Trump and Republicans are clearly, demonstrably, and measurably worse for everyone in the country except the rich.

The apathetic voters just didn't give enough of a fuck. They are just as much to blame as republican voters.

-4

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota 16d ago

It's easy for me to fault non voters for having the attitude of waiting around for their perfect candidate to appear, instead of just voting every time and choosing the best option on the ballot.

People fought and died for our right to vote. "The people running don't inspire me enough" is just not a good enough excuse.

1

u/guamisc 16d ago

Sigh. To many people the D choice on the ballot is just the person who led us to this place where these Republicans could get on the ballot and win. My entire several decade life has been the choice of (R) - Evil shit and (D) - Do nothing you want and impotently let even worse R's win next time.

-2

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota 16d ago

Sigh. To many people the D choice on the ballot is just the person who led us to this place where these Republicans could get on the ballot and win.

If all the people that stayed home had instead voted for a third party, that person would have won the popular vote.

Not to mention that this insane laser focus on only the Presidential election is part of why we are here, because all those people that stay home are also saying they don't care about who wins locally, and that can make a huge difference.

I fault the people who stay home and don't participate just as much as anyone else.

4

u/guamisc 16d ago

Sure, everyone is at fault. But how much power and individual agency does everyone have and how much can everyone effect?

That fuckhole Jeffries? If he would remove head from ass, he could change a lot of stuff.

You? Me? Not much.

-2

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota 16d ago

But how much power and individual agency does everyone have and how much can everyone effect?

The power and individual agency that you have is your vote, your voice, and your ability to run for something.

I'm just tired of the excuses for non-voters that they aren't happy with the choices. You can't stay home and stay silent, and then complain that the choices that other people picked aren't good enough for you.

4

u/guamisc 16d ago

I vote.

I use my voice to fight against Republicans and those assholes like Jeffries and Schumer so we could actually build a coalition who could win year over year. Would be nice if I didn't have to fight the latter idiots who qualify as my "leadership".

I do not have the financial resources to run for a position that pays 17k or less a year for my local/state level races.

I'm just tired of the excuses for non-voters that they aren't happy with the choices. You can't stay home and stay silent, and then complain that the choices that other people picked aren't good enough for you.

Well they can and they do, so maybe lets stop serving them shit.

0

u/Lucky-Earther Minnesota 16d ago

I vote.

Then this isn't about you.

Primary turnout has been pathetic for decades. Even regular turnout has only cleared 60% in the last few years. If you vote in every election, every primary, then you are a minority.

3

u/guamisc 16d ago

Well our shitass leadership has been doing the same stuff over and over, losing to worse Republicans every time.

Maybe you should start using your vote and voice against people who actually have power and reach and not browbeating the electorate who won't listen to you.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/thirtynation 16d ago

It should be EASY AS SHIT to blame them. Are you fucking kidding me? Their only other choice was to vote for the guy actively shouting his fascism from the rooftops. That wasn't easy enough for them to figure out? Do they just not understand that not voting at all is equivalent to voting for the bad guy? (Don't answer this. I know those morons don't understand that.)

15

u/ShrimpCrackers 16d ago

They don't realize that a lot of people actually vote Trump because they want a global reset and they're tired of the status quo.

2

u/BrainLow6059 16d ago

Yes. I personally know people who vote this way. They aren't uneducated, they aren't dullards, they aren't radicals. They just see no other way to shake up this broken party system we're under than to vote for the wild card lunatic.

And are they even wrong? Do any of us think Mamdani gets elected in NYC, and forces the party to acknowledge progressive policy, without the current situation?

20

u/OneSeaworthiness7768 16d ago

They’re absolutely morons if they think that’s an effective strategy. Look at the damage being done right now. Some damage will be irreversible or take decades to undo. It’s not just gonna be magically fixed in the next election. Self-righteous idiots.

5

u/Harbinger2nd 16d ago

Experience is a much better teacher than words.

1

u/ShrimpCrackers 15d ago

They may be morons but they're desperate, selfish, morons and that's what Trump and his billionaire backers counted on.

That's why they just want ANY change. Some people want a nuclear holocaust because they think they might become a king on the other end.

-2

u/BrainLow6059 16d ago

Look at the damage being done right now. Some damage will be irreversible or take decades to undo.

I don't think you understand. The damage being done right now would be done regardless if we maintained the status quo. It's just being done fast enough now that we all see it and recognize it.

Would you rather a death of a thousand cuts or a punch to the face you can actually respond to?

There's a reason established Republicans hated Trump taking over the party, it's because he's too stupid to maintain the conceit. He's showing their hand and bragging about it. That leads to action.

7

u/OneSeaworthiness7768 16d ago

> I don't think you understand. The damage being done right now would be done regardless if we maintained the status quo.

If you think Kamala or Hilary as president would be producing the same results right now, your username checks out.

1

u/ShrimpCrackers 15d ago

Kamala? Absolutely not, shed have been a good president.

Hillary? She helped bring this mess. Read about her infamous Pied Piper strategy of 2015. Her team propped up Trump behind the scenes for the Republican primary because they thought he would be easily defeated and ignored every poll and data science group.

6

u/Murky-Relation481 16d ago

I mean if we let Democrats have actual power in Federal government I'd be willing to agree, but the Dems have had a controlling majority in government for 6 months in the last 50 years.

So it's hard to take an opinion like this seriously when anyone with a brain can see this is 100% on Republicans since except for a short period in 2009 they haven't had a real shot at anything since the late 1970s. Oh and in that 6 months they actually passed healthcare reform, not perfect, but it was a huge step forward (blah blah Romney blah blah, okay it's still literally better than before aka progess as in progressive).

3

u/guamisc 16d ago

If you completely absolve Democratic leadership of their responsibility to actually win votes and elections, sure. But these are the people that lost to Trump twice. And bumbling "is our children learning" W. before that.

4

u/BrainLow6059 16d ago

Thank you. I don't understand this bizarre cult-like attitude towards the DNC. I don't see how you can point out 50 years of abject failure and say "but anyway I'm going to keep voting this way no matter what happens" and expect our country to improve.

3

u/Murky-Relation481 16d ago

If you don't actually understand how the government works then yes you don't understand.

You need 60 votes in the Senate and a simple majority in the House to do anything, and you also need the presidency to make sure you aren't just gunna get a veto.

Democrats have had that ability for 6 months in 50 years. People say shit like you "well they have been failures" when they've literally not had enough power to do anything for HALF A CENTURY.

That isn't a problem with democrats, its a problem with people electing republicans, even when the republicans are horrible.

5

u/BrainLow6059 16d ago

Personally I will always vote for Dems,

You have to stop broadcasting you're going to support these people no matter that they do. It's why they get away with this shit

5

u/Chillpill411 16d ago

I would say the people who voted for Trump gave us two terms of Trump 

1

u/captainporcupine3 16d ago

Great, keep shouting that, that'll win us the next election.

6

u/SirDiego Minnesota 16d ago edited 16d ago

the "lesser of two evils" strategy

But this premise right here is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how voting in the US works.

I'm not going to espouse the virtues of the US election system. It sucks. It was made 250 years ago.

That said, to say you must adhere to a "lesser of two evils" strategy assumes the voters have no agency in who their candidates are. This would be true if you were only allowed to vote in general elections. Sure, money in politics skews things in a certain direction but each individual is capable of impacting which candidates are available in the general. And that impact is demonstrated by parties shifting policy over time, in both directions.

The sort of unfortunate reality is that voters on the right have actually chosen to pivot hard to the right, into fascism, populism, authoritarianism (and again this is influenced but not entirely the result of lots and lots and lots of money in politics) That's sort of naturally been counteracted by the left-er party broadening the tent.

On the flip side, progressives and politicians further left have also had more success than they ever have in the past. If you're a progressive it may not seem quick enough for you, but 20 years ago there was essentially no representation for the left wing in the party (which was dominated mainly by the huge success of people like Bill Clinton -- centrist especially on economic policy). That is because people can vote in primaries, write to their congressional representatives who they did vote for to express their own views, and otherwise boost candidates they prefer within the party that more closely aligns with their views.

The idea that we are simply stuck with two static choices which are chosen for us and never change is hyperbolic at best. And not at all useful for anyone sincerely interested in influencing the political environment towards their preference.

Edit: To bring it back to the original topic. People voted for Hakeem Jeffries. You may not agree with it but you do have to understand that people voted for him to be the candidate. Ignoring that reality and being angry or frustrated about it does nothing to persuade those people. Change can be slow, it can also be confusing especially if you are closed-minded to the fact that not everyone has the same belief structures as you. But spinning your wheels in the mud and acting like change is impossible just perpetuates the issue.

5

u/HJWalsh 16d ago

We can win, but we have to fight so much harder to win primaries because centrists flood the races with PAC money and Republicans will crossover to fight the progressive.

1

u/SirDiego Minnesota 16d ago

Sure. It may not be as easy as we want it to be. The massive amounts of money flooding into political races especially primaries makes things challenging.

But also it does no good to assume that's the only reason for the political environment we are in. I think it is important to remember that people with sincerely different values and political views exist. For example, Biden won the primary in 2020 because a lot of people voted for him. That's just a fact. It isn't solely because "The DNC" pre-selected him, because that assumes that voters have no agency. It's also a very unhelpful premise because if you believe that then it must follow that persuasion is impossible.

If we ignore that voters have agency and act like everyone who votes centrist is just a pawn only capable of being drawn in the direction of large donors like ants to sugar, rather than just humans with differing and nebulous (and sometimes confusing to us) political views, then we neglect the only thing that can actually move the needle.

3

u/littlebobbytables9 16d ago

You can't assume it's because people agree more with Biden's politics, though. I would guess a large portion chose him for nebulous "electability" reasons

-2

u/OMalleyOrOblivion 16d ago

Republicans will cross over to fight for the progressive in the primary so they have an easier job in the general.

3

u/SydeshowJake 16d ago

Former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel on Fox News after Michigan's primaries:

...Republicans were crossing over to vote for Haley Stevens, they were that afraid of El-Sayed. I was knocking doors over the weekend in high-propensity Republican areas and they were skipping the Republican primary altogether... and they were pulling a Democrat ballot to vote for Haley Stevens. That's how afraid of El-Sayed they were."

0

u/OMalleyOrOblivion 16d ago

Republican strategist makes bold claim on Republican media, must be true.

3

u/SydeshowJake 16d ago

Okay, what would you say her strategy is here by lying?

0

u/OMalleyOrOblivion 16d ago

Making El-Sayed out to be a serious threat in order to drive Republican turnout.

2

u/SydeshowJake 15d ago edited 15d ago

So in the clip she said the competitive Republican primary Mike Rogers had in a previous election was a detriment to his campaign and that that's now the case for Democrats this election. She also says "it has expanded the Republican map on who we can reach" and "this absolutely puts Mike on the map."

I also found the full conversation that this clip comes from and her overarching message for the segment was optimistic for Republican turnout because of this primary. Sorry I didn't share the whole context of the clip at first, I didn't have it. But anyway, your claim doesn't parse well with the video. She certainly tries to scare the viewers about what he represents, but not about his popularity.

2

u/PopBulky7023 16d ago

I really wish more people would face the reality of this. Disillusionment and disenfranchisement are death knells for a democracy.

3

u/yodasdad64 16d ago

Hasan Minhaj just put out a video on how the Democrats abandoned the working class. A lot of liberals on Twitter were mad, but this video barely even scratches the surface.

2

u/MrBrobot626 16d ago

I think perhaps the fact you say you will always vote for Dems enables them to have policy positions that are directly in opposition to what their base want. What percentage of democrat voters are opposed to Israel and want universal healthcare? And yet demons like AIPAC Shakur here will still vote to aid Israel and against universal healthcare because they have uncritical devotees who will always for them.

I wonder what it would take for a blue no matter who matter to not vote blue. These people have no right to call MAGA a cult when they still promise to vote for people whose views they actively claim to hate. A diseased mentality if you ask me.

1

u/mmvvvp 16d ago

No need to vote for these centrist Dems. All is already lost, country is fully gone, any vote for a Dem like Jeffries only emboldens & entrenches them, only vote for the Dem socialists, only hope for the future.

0

u/AnonAmbientLight 16d ago

It's actually the voters who are responsible.

If I give you the choice between a sandwich that's not your favorite, or a sandwich full of razor blades, why do I have to sell you on the first sandwich?

And is it fair to say that it's my fault for not preparing the most perfect sandwich that matches exactly what you like, if everyone picks the razor blade sandwich?

8

u/FirstNameIsDistance Pennsylvania 16d ago

If I give you the choice between a sandwich that's not your favorite, or a sandwich full of razor blades, why do I have to sell you on the first sandwich?

Which is why a lot of people choose to just not eat either sandwhich.

0

u/OMalleyOrOblivion 16d ago edited 16d ago

They're eating one of them no matter what lol.

1

u/Krytan 16d ago edited 16d ago

"Personally I will always vote for Dems"

Yes, they know. That's why they do this. As long as voters will 'vote blue no matter who' they don't feel the need to change. They get their money from the donors either way. Politicians really only care about people who will either not vote, or vote a different party. If you're giving them your vote for free, well, you're gonna get your money's worth in exchange.

Ironically the worse the republicans are, the more license it gives democrats to do the bare minimum.

1

u/captainporcupine3 16d ago edited 15d ago

Sorry, some of us have disabled kids who need better healthcare and can't afford to withhold our votes in protest. Btw I average 2 hours per weekend canvassing and volunteering for local left/progressive candidates in my spare time, which i have precious little of. How's your direct action going this year? Or do you prefer to spend your time sitting online, shitting on people whose lives you know nothing about?

1

u/fcocyclone Iowa 16d ago

2 losses in 2016 and 2024 and I'm damn sure they would have managed to lose 2020 if not for trump bungling covid.

They stand for nothing except being losers

0

u/dingdongler55 15d ago

Personally I will always vote for Dems

so you contradict yourself - you want these people out but you will vote for them blue no matter who. Your change will never come at that rate.

1

u/captainporcupine3 15d ago

Sorry, some of us have disabled kids who badly need better healthcare and can't afford to withhold our votes in protest. Guessing you don't know what that's like, must be nice for you. Btw I average 2 hours per weekend canvassing and volunteering for local left/progressive candidates in my spare time, which i have precious little of. How's your direct action going this year? Or do you prefer to spend your time sitting online criticizing people whose lives you know nothing about?

1

u/dingdongler55 15d ago

The latter lol - I rather protect me's and mines. Work too much and make good money and enjoy spending time with my family. Not time for that baloney.

-1

u/chanaandeler_bong 16d ago

People just need to use the primaries correctly. They always bitch about the candidates… in October.

Seems like people are starting to understand it though.

Primary Jefferies, but if he’s the candidate… it’s time to coalesce around a shitty candidate for 2 years until the next primary.

-12

u/smiama36 16d ago

The fact of the matter is that more Republicans voted for their candidates - across the country - than Democrats did. Now you whine and complain because they aren’t fighting hard enough when Democratic voters didn’t bother to give them any power. This country has a lot more issues to deal with long before we can tackle a messy complex issue like Medicare for All. Not one Democrat anywhere has a magic wand and can say abracadabra and poof you’ll have universal healthcare. Give Democrats Congress and the White House (like Republican voters did) and maybe it can happen.

5

u/Kakistocracy_0 16d ago

Issues like the rampant corruption Republicans enjoy with zero scrutiny.