• Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    Sadly, I feel there are still too many bigots and sexists in the US who cannot bring themselves to vote for a woman, esp. one who isn’t ‘white enough’. That, piled on top of the ‘establishment’ Dem factions that will do everything possible to subvert a campaign… which will let the right-wingers/fascists drive right up the middle again.

    Feel free to prove me wrong, USA. Please.

    • almost_genocide@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      When the DNC runs candidates who’s campaign promises are status quo, corporate subsidies and serving Israel then yeah, the bigot and sexist vote becomes significant. People need to stop using that as a condemnation of the country as a whole. It’s a condemnation of the two party system, a corrupt or derelict Democratic party or a “democracy” which is no longer functioning.

      Meanwhile candidates who actually prioritize American voters can win without the help of bigots. Obama proved this back in 2008 and Zohran has proved things have only gotten better. Not only did he win without the bigot vote but without all the other piece of shit voters who showed up for Cuomo in the general election.

      Harris was a garbage candidate. Biden was a garbage candidate. Hillary Clinton was a garbage candidate. American voters as a whole are not responsible for the abhorrent behavior by the DNC and assholes who vote for people like Biden and Cuomo in Democratic primaries.

      • smeenz@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        But the reason they put garbage candidates forward is because they regard them as a safe bet, not too radical for some, not too weak for others. … they may be right… it depends whether the vaguely inoffensive option results in the largest number of votes overall or whether a boldly progressive candidate with strong support of fewer voters gives them the better result. Dems always go with the safe option.

        Edit: why are so many people downvoting this ? I really don’t understand ?

        • itsprobablyfine@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          26 days ago

          Well yeah, last time Americans elected a socialist they kept electing him til he died. Can’t have that happen again. They aren’t going with safe they are going with what they are financially incentivised to do. Look at the funding for democratic candidates, that’s their constituency. You’re projecting your own morals on them, they don’t actually care about what’s good for the country

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            26 days ago

            FDR wasn’t a socialist, he was a man who understood that if he didn’t offer the people a better deal then they’d look to revolution to get it. It pissed off the rich and powerful, but ultimately he was doing what he believed necessary to preserve capitalism.

        • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          26 days ago

          they may be right.

          How could you possibly call this “right” after this strategy lost to an orange blob twice?

        • almost_genocide@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          But the reason they put garbage candidates forward is because they regard them as a safe bet, not too radical for some, not too weak for others. … they may be right…

          How many more times does this strategy need to fail for you to stop saying “they may be right”. At what point do you say progressives and leftists “may be right”?

          • smeenz@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            18 days ago

            I said they may be right because we’ve not seen them take any other option. In other words, we lack the data to know if their ‘play it safe’ strategy is the one that results in the most votes, or not.

            Perhaps you and others are reading too much into my post and think that I was supporting the safe option. I was not, I was merely noting what they continue to do. Perhaps this explains why I initially got upvotes for a few days and then got downvoted below freezing?

            • almost_genocide@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              18 days ago

              In other words, we lack the data to know if their ‘play it safe’ strategy is the one that results in the most votes, or not.

              Zohran and Obama had ridiculously high turnouts. You’re giving establishment Democratic politicians a benefit of the doubt they do not deserve.

    • Taldan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      26 days ago

      I have no intention of voting for another pro-corporate, “my turn” Democrat. If we don’t end up with her, or another actual progressive, I think a whole lot of Democrats will be completely turned off the party

    • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      27 days ago

      Not to mention all the progressives that won’t vote for her because she’s not progressive enough, or perfectly aligned on every policy.

          • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            26 days ago

            Criticism is not ‘turning on their own.’

            If you cannot handle defending your decisions, you don’t belong on the left. Either as a representative or as a member. If you want to vote to send weapons to Israel while they commit one of the worst genocides in history, you will get backlash and demands to defend your actions from any human being that exists.

            • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              26 days ago

              Yes, I agree. But once we are in the election, we need to support ‘better’. If we keep pushing people against the viable better candidate then, they will lose and we’ll get the much worse maga option.

              • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                26 days ago

                No.

                Period.

                That is how fascism happens. ‘Lesser Evilism’ does not work. The current state of the US proves this. It is so easy to just not be evil. So incredibly fucking easy.

                Gavin Newsom, for example, will be worse for the average person than Donald Trump. He would be the ‘lesser evil,’ and would probably redirect ICE to only target male immigrants instead of everyone brown and would probably say gays and lesbians are okay while still targeting trans people; but his economic warfare against the working class will be worse, as he’s competent and surrounds himself with competent people.

                Allowing people like that, as an example, to exist on the left because Donald Trump exists is like shooting off your toe because you were aiming at your dick. Yeah, it’s kinda better from a deranged viewpoint that ignores everything, but it does not solve the problem.

                Or to borrow a phrase, it’s like only feeding bad children to the orphan crushing machine instead of just turning off the orphan crushing machine. No. ‘Better’ is not good enough in this case. Joseph Biden is responsible for at least 200,000 dead children. Every single Biden voter that just insisted he was the best we could do killed 200,000 children. Would more have died under Trump 2? It turns out no. But we delayed some immigrants getting deported so its fine I guess.

                • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  26 days ago

                  So your solution is to support maga? I agree a revolution would be better, but it seems Americans can barely even do demonstrations on the occasional weekend. The U.S. has a choice between bad and much much worse. Do you really want to choose ‘much much worse’? What else is your plan?

                  • vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    26 days ago

                    No the solution is RUN PEOPLE THAT DO NOT SUPPORT GENOCIDE.

                    Jesus Christ you are supposedly in a democracy. Making your voice heard is not "HURRRDURRR LEMME PICK BETWEEN A AND B,’ it is criticizing, threatening to not support, and working against those that do not represent you regardless of the color of their tie.

                    “Oh but what choice do we have” Every fucking choice. Fucking storm the DNC HQ. Protest outside your local DNC office. Fire bomb Fetterman’s house. For fuck’s sake stop settling for lesser evil and demand at least mediocre good.

                    In every single state what matters for the presidential race is the name you input for president. Put a name down that isn’t evil. Congrats. If 1/4th of voters do this, that person wins the presidency.