And I mean, the Democratic party doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If you don’t try to change anything, of course the awful “moderates” stay in charge. But it is possible to overtake them, just look at Mamdani. But some people won’t even try that because “it’s a lost case”…
He now holds the primary attendance record in NYC. It was only 30% of eligible voters, up from 21% in the last election. That’s literally all it takes. We just need to show the fuck up.
Congressional primaries see less than 15% attendance. We’ve been letting retirees pack our ballots with centrists for 40 years, then complain about our choices in the general elections. We wouldn’t be calling for term limits if we consistently participated in primaries.
No “progressive” will have an answer for you on this. Voting isn’t the answer, blah blah blah. But it seems no one ever really tried. Otherwise maybe they’d just organize people into voting in every primary.
No “progressive” will have an answer for you on this. Voting isn’t the answer, blah blah blah. But it seems no one ever really tried. Otherwise maybe they’d just organize people into voting in every primary.
If you don’t try to change anything, of course the awful “moderates” stay in charge.
Trying to change thing is exactly what the Uncommitted movement tried to do. And while they failed to move the needle in the 2024 election, in 2028, the Democrats will have to think a lot more about whether they want to keep losing in exchange for supporting genocide.
Remember, it’s always “the most important election ever.” Every election is billed as that. But sometimes you need to be willing to accept a short-term loss in exchange for long-term progress. Myopically focusing on just the election right in front of you is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Kamala losing gave space for someone like Mamdani to win. It’s clear that corporate DNC centrism is a toxic losing brand. If Kamala had won, it is extremely unlikely that Mamdani would have won the NYC primary.
Trying to change thing is exactly what the Uncommitted movement tried to do
Where did I say anything bad about them? It was about the primary and not about the general election.
I actually get your point in theory as you could see elections in a game theory type of setting. The problem is that the last elections have been “the most important election ever” because well… they have gotten increasingly more significant and important. 2016 allowed Trump to shift the Supreme Court long-term and change decades-old consensus. It alone almost got him to do a coup. 2020 could have very well literally enabled that, and 2024 well… just look at everything that is happen. This is not the beginning of fascism, that’s well some steps inside.
I get the theory, and if the opponent was a McCain I could even understand your thought. But if it’s the election of 1930, where every vote counts to defeat the bigger evil, it’s not the time to sit it out for future benefits.
The point is that socialism cannot be achieved by electoral means. At best, if the masses in the street really pressure those in power, you get social democracy. That being said the choice for Americans was neoliberalism or fascism. The reasons for fascism winning go deeper than “the left was to whinny”, but that’s beside the point being made here.
Apparently that very controversial position makes us shitlibs instead of people who would like to not be abducted by unmarked secret police and taken to a black site while we try to organize socialist political movements.
There are goals before socialism that ARE achievable electorally which are still worth pursuing in the meantime, like stalling fascists, or prevent genocide of immigrants and queer folks
We need never be afraid of the vote of informed Americans. It is only the ignorant voter we have to fear, ignorant politically, no matter how fine his house or how expensive his schooling. Such people have never experienced democracy; they have merely enjoyed its benefits. It is hard to explain what democracy is; it is necessary to participate in it to understand it.
The former Berlin businessman I referred to earlier told me that he blamed his own group, people with the time and the money and the opportunity to know better, for what happened to Germany. “We ignored Hitler,” he said. “We considered him an unimportant fellow, not quite a gentleman, not of our own class. We considered it just a little bit vulgar to bother with him, to bother with politics at all.”
They thought of the government as “They.” The only possible route to a clear conscience in politics is to accept political responsibility, either as an active member of the party in power or as an equally active member of the loyal opposition.
Thank you. I really don’t get those people.
And I mean, the Democratic party doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If you don’t try to change anything, of course the awful “moderates” stay in charge. But it is possible to overtake them, just look at Mamdani. But some people won’t even try that because “it’s a lost case”…
He now holds the primary attendance record in NYC. It was only 30% of eligible voters, up from 21% in the last election. That’s literally all it takes. We just need to show the fuck up.
Congressional primaries see less than 15% attendance. We’ve been letting retirees pack our ballots with centrists for 40 years, then complain about our choices in the general elections. We wouldn’t be calling for term limits if we consistently participated in primaries.
Well that and ranked choice, right?
He won majority first round. Granted, I’d love to see ranked-choice in our federal elections, but that didn’t matter in Mamdani’s case.
No “progressive” will have an answer for you on this. Voting isn’t the answer, blah blah blah. But it seems no one ever really tried. Otherwise maybe they’d just organize people into voting in every primary.
No “progressive” will have an answer for you on this. Voting isn’t the answer, blah blah blah. But it seems no one ever really tried. Otherwise maybe they’d just organize people into voting in every primary.
Trying to change thing is exactly what the Uncommitted movement tried to do. And while they failed to move the needle in the 2024 election, in 2028, the Democrats will have to think a lot more about whether they want to keep losing in exchange for supporting genocide.
Remember, it’s always “the most important election ever.” Every election is billed as that. But sometimes you need to be willing to accept a short-term loss in exchange for long-term progress. Myopically focusing on just the election right in front of you is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Kamala losing gave space for someone like Mamdani to win. It’s clear that corporate DNC centrism is a toxic losing brand. If Kamala had won, it is extremely unlikely that Mamdani would have won the NYC primary.
Literal accelerationism. Jesus fucking Christ.
Every election since I could vote (early 2000s) has been the most important.
Why? Because the results built the Supreme Court that curtailed every progressive policy achievement and accelerated our current descent into fascism.
Without GWB you don’t have Roberts or Alito. Without Trump you don’t have Gorsuch, Cavanaugh, or Barrett.
Those fuckers have lifetime appointments. One lost election sets us back decades. The only good time for a protest vote is the primary.
Where did I say anything bad about them? It was about the primary and not about the general election.
I actually get your point in theory as you could see elections in a game theory type of setting. The problem is that the last elections have been “the most important election ever” because well… they have gotten increasingly more significant and important. 2016 allowed Trump to shift the Supreme Court long-term and change decades-old consensus. It alone almost got him to do a coup. 2020 could have very well literally enabled that, and 2024 well… just look at everything that is happen. This is not the beginning of fascism, that’s well some steps inside.
I get the theory, and if the opponent was a McCain I could even understand your thought. But if it’s the election of 1930, where every vote counts to defeat the bigger evil, it’s not the time to sit it out for future benefits.
The point is that socialism cannot be achieved by electoral means. At best, if the masses in the street really pressure those in power, you get social democracy. That being said the choice for Americans was neoliberalism or fascism. The reasons for fascism winning go deeper than “the left was to whinny”, but that’s beside the point being made here.
Okay, so, which is easier for socialists to organize under? Neoliberalism, or fascism?
Neoliberalism, obviously. Kamala probably wouldn’t be in favour of people being abducted off the street and shoved into unmarked vans.
Apparently that very controversial position makes us shitlibs instead of people who would like to not be abducted by unmarked secret police and taken to a black site while we try to organize socialist political movements.
Don’t you see? Only when it’s all ashes can we start the utopia. /s
There are goals before socialism that ARE achievable electorally which are still worth pursuing in the meantime, like stalling fascists, or prevent genocide of immigrants and queer folks
—Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government