• Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I’ll ask the same question i did on the other thread. Why, do disaffected voters have to …

    [show] up during primaries or generals to indicate that moving left will pay anything back.

    Why not just poll them, or focus-group them, or use proxies like social media?

    You seem to have no problem with the notion of leftist groups communicating preferred policies to Democrat strategists, but then seem to bizarrely assume that the only way to communicate a willingness to vote is to actually vote (for a party you don’t agree with).

    Tell me… We all go out and vote Democrat. They get into power. How do they now know it wasn’t the support for genocide that won them the vote and go even further next time?

    • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 minutes ago

      A take I’ve heard that maybe you’ll understand is this:

      Leftist organizing in the US isn’t going to change the system 90 days before election day. There’s simply too much momentum with the two party system we have.

      So now the situation is, vote for whoever you’d rather have in charge of the country while you do your leftist organizing for the next several years. I know I’d rather do that work under a Harris presidency than a Trump one, for a million obvious reasons.

      To do anything else is to simply not understand the reality of the situation.

      • Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 minutes ago

        That’s a reasonable argument, but it leads to some pretty uncomfortable conclusions for democracy.

        During our next “leftist organizing for the next several years.”, why would the Democrats budge an inch given that they know all they need to do is hold fast until the last 90 days and we’ll all fall into line and vote for them anyway?

        We end up like the boy who cries wolf. All our protest and campaigns mean nothing because our votes are, in the end, absolutely guaranteed. The Democrats can have whatever policy positions they like.

        I don’t see how 4 years or 4 days makes any difference. If they are guaranteed your vote come election day, they have no reason to shift policy in order to obtain it.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 minutes ago

      Show up at the primaries for anti-genocode candidates, y’know, like fucking nobody did this year because half the most progressive members of the party got ousted by israeli funded pacs, who’s messaging should have had zero impact on this supposed very dependable voting base that the democrats should really spend more effort listening to.

      Wanna know how radicals took over the republican party? They established themselves as a major voting contingent, and then they hijacked all the primaries.

      They would laugh in your face for suggesting that the way to push the Republicans towards their goals is to just not vote at all and then loudly declare it was due to insufficient trumpiness. Not even they are that stupid.

    • when@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      It’s extremely interesting that democratic politicians have not only managed people (traditional voters) into believing that this genocide is normal but if you demand or say anything against this genocide then these normal people will attack you instead of asking their party leader “Why is it essential for their party to keep supporting genocide?”

      • Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I think the trick has been to give people a plausible narrative that makes them sound like the clever ones, standard power-play. People love that stuff, myself included, we’re all vulnerable to it. It’s why conspiracy theories work so well, but here, the same psychology is put to use rewarding people for saying stuff that’s obviously morally bankrupt. I think it works the same way a peacock’s tail works in evolution, the idea being that ‘surely no one would say something so obviously awful unless they had a really very complicated and convincing reason’

        It’s allowed some of the decade’s worst atrocities to go virtually unopposed.