In a way, it did. Habitual non-voters appear far harder to reach than had been hoped. The range of candidates available for habitual voters to choose from seems far more tractable, so the range of candidates is what I’m suggesting this approach might change.
What specifically do you think these sit outs will change?
You act like more progressive voters sitting out is some bold new strategy, but it’s actually been the default. Young people have been sitting out primaries and elections for the last 50 years. The exact opposite of what you are saying, getting younger people to vote consistently and be willing to choose the lesser of 2 evils seems far more promising. What you advocate is actually what most people are already doing now, especially in primaries. “I don’t vote cuz no party or candidate is honest and actually cares about me man blah blah blah”
1 Like
The assumption of the eDems that the left will hold their nose and vote for whatever candidate they put out, no matter how repugnant.
Young people have indeed been sitting out elections for 50 years. This has not escaped notice and attempts to mobilise the youth vote have been repeatedly tried and have never, to my knowledge, had any particular success. Why you think this makes that a more promising tactic isn’t clear to me.
I’m distinguishing between habitual voters and habitual non-voters. That HNVs will not show up is a given, clue’s in the name. Their non-voting is a non-factor. What I’m saying is that the actual preferences of left-wing habitual voters are more or less also a non-factor; close to it, certainly, in the thinking of the eDems. And I’m suggesting that it might be possible to change that through a well-publicised boycott. Democratic Socialists of America is an already-existing nation-wide organisation explicitly aimed at pushing the Democrats left. They’ve already declined to endorse Biden. I’m suggesting they take it a step or two further and make an anti-endorsement. It might play best for PR purposes as a message to definitely vote down-ballot, but not cast a vote for President. That would make the effect potentially measurable, at least to some approximation.
I forget which of WI/MI/PA it was, but in one of them (or maybe Ohio), in 2016, the number of people who voted D downballot, but didn’t vote for POTUS exceeded the number of votes by which Trump won that state. If that happened in numerous states, possibly, something might change.
My claim is that the eDems are ideologically relatively distant from their base and will continue to be so unless they’re given some incentive to change. Sanders’ failure seems to create real problems for the alternative of activating the habitual non-voter demographic.
Work smarter not harder imo
The 1852 election was a disaster for the Whigs. In the vain hope of once more bridging the widening sectional rift, the party crafted a measured, proslavery platform distasteful to many northern Whigs, thousands of whom simply stayed home on Election Day. Two years later, when Congress passed divisive legislation that could introduce slavery into Kansas, the teetering Whig party came tumbling down. A new coalition that combined most of the Free Soil Party, a majority of northern Whigs, and a substantial number of disgruntled northern Democrats came together to form the Republican party. In less than two years, this grand, and not-at-all-old, party emerged as the most popular political party in the North, electing the Speaker of the House in February of 1856 and winning 11 of 16 non-slaveholding states in the presidential contest later that year.
Whigs were basically a jobber playing the punching bag role to Alan Colmes if you can imagine it.
1 Like
I have to say… I find using the word bloviating in a sentence while calling me condescending is still cracking me up 12+ hours later.
blo·vi·ate
/ˈblōvēˌāt/
verb
informal•US
verb: bloviate ; 3rd person present: bloviates ; past tense: bloviated ; past participle: bloviated ; gerund or present participle: bloviating
- talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.
What’s great about you using this word to describe me in this thread is that it’s pure projection. As for the condescension I’ve made the choice to group it with pretension and hypocrisy as things I’ll tolerate at certain levels in myself so as not to be totally paralyzed. Sometimes it’s impossible to respond to something correctly without being some combination of condescending, pretentious, or hypocritical… and I’ll accept all three in small doses to be correct about something. Because that’s my goal: not to be personally right myself but to reach the correct conclusion. If I allow the fact that the correct answer involves being pretentious, condescending, or hypocritical to stop me from going there I think that’s a pretty big leak. Those are things to be minimized, but they’ll never get to zero while I’m prioritizing being correct.
You’re just offended that you’ve got such a terrible 3rd grade take that the correct way to respond to it is somewhat condescending. That reflects more poorly on you than it does on me. If there was anything redeeming or substantial to the idea that we should just stay home vs Trump that wouldn’t be happening. Garbage in garbage out my dude.
3 Likes
lol
2 Likes
Worth considering?
The major American political realignment of the early 2020s had been brewing for decades due to fundamental divisions over the role of government in American politics. By the late 2010s a small and radical group of anticapitalists had become fed up with the two major parties, the Republicans and Democrats. Both systematically downplayed inequality, opting instead to spar over seemingly unrelated issues including belligerent foreign policy and ceding governmental influence over the economy to private actors.
I mean you used a word I had to Google while calling me condescending…
Yes, that is exactly it. Was just providing an actual example from American history in case you weren’t familiar since people itt are like “Why do you think this could possibly happen?”
1 Like
You could even rewrite this paragraph in a way that accurately describes both eras since it’s essentially a political economy isomorphism: power coalescing to reap the fruits of (de facto) free and coerced labor. Same actors, same plot but with a time-lapse cyclorama behind a chorus line singing the call-and-response Underground Railroad classics followed by reciting “I am a student-athlete” in unison.
1 Like
Missing from all this discussion is that the DNC isn’t passively pulled to the left or the right. They do not go towards whoever works harder. They are an active player who at every step supports one side to the detriment of the other. They finance and give aid to their preferred candidates while sabotaging and encouraging primaries against the other.
Right now they have zero incentive to change that because so many will dutifully pull the lever for the LotE. There are not going to change if Biden wins. On the contrary it will reinforce their conviction that no matter how bad their preferred candidate is, no matter how little they actually do (*) they can always count on your vote.
I have read a lot of scenarios proposed here how things get worse when Trump is elected. What’s the scenario where things get better long-term if Biden is elected? What do you expect in the next 20 years?
(*) What is the house doing right now for those losing their jobs or income due to CoViD-19?
3 Likes
This has been covered several times. This whole premise assumes the only thing you can do is vote for president to influence the DNC.
How about,
- Monday go to your local DNC and volunteer,
- find your local chapter of any number of progressive organizations and join them,
- organize on social media for others to do the same,
- run for positions in those groups,
- write op eds
- join in protests
- actually go to hearings and open houses for legislation
- call your representative weekly
- use the community you built to influence the DNC
- run primary candidates against dems who are not progressive
- donate to and volunteer for progressive candidates
Do all this and vote to get the single worst president in history out of office.
2 Likes
How does all of this stack up versus the DNC giving your opponent access to their donor list?
Did I say it would be easy? I thought you wanted real change? It will take more than sitting out an election.
1 Like
If you want to influence the party I suggest donating enough to it so that they will pay attention to you. Try $358,800. How political megadonors can give almost $500,000 with a single check : Sunlight Foundation
pointing out the system is broken doesn’t fix it. Why can’t people grassroots fundraise for their candidates?
He could donate $358,800 and have some influence. Well, I’m not sure if there would be any legal issue there because he’s German, but his options in your list are limited too.
You are seriously asking this in response to an article titled “How political megadonors can give almost $500,000 with a single check” ???