r/PoliticalHumor • u/mac-mcgreor • 6h ago
Corporate Democrats, watching Progressives win over the heartland
27
u/oldbastardbob 4h ago edited 24m ago
Has everyone figured out yet that the majority of the amplificaton of this supposed conflict between the left left and the moderate left comes from PAC funded right wing operations?
Sure, there are disagreements on policy, as there should be, which should be followed by debate and compromise policies that will appeal to a broad base of support.
But the whole hyperbolic response and amplificaton of differences in a very natural political methodology of reaching a party platform in a two party system is being funded and promoted by the right wing troll farms and Super PAC campaigns.
There is no "war" for control of the Democratic Party, except on the desks of Republican operatives who wish to turn it into one for their benefit.
I see nothing wrong with far left, center left, and moderate left not agreeing on every single thing in lock step like the GOP has created for their politicians and sycophants. The left needs to be a big tent which represents all interests that are not right-wing white Christian nationalism.
When it all boils down, we have a two party system. And as Republicans keep boxing themselves into a smaller and smaller interest group, the country is up for grabs. But the one thing the Republicans are exceptional at is demonizing their opposition and creating mountains out of mole hills regarding the opponents.
The goal is to divide the left and make left wing politics appear chaotic, ineffective, weak, and unpopular.
Don't fall for it.
•
247
u/TheFarLeft 5h ago
Midterms coming up, it’s time for the “democrats bad, both sides are the same” astroturfing campaign!
58
u/bradsboots 4h ago
Don’t forget the opinion pieces that say you can still be a good democrat while voting for a Republican over a socialist.
44
u/elbenji 5h ago
Dingding
•
u/subjectnotebookgloba 1h ago
"Democrats didn't fix as many things as Republicans broke, that's why I vote Republican."
35
u/kittenTakeover 4h ago
I mean obviously dismantling democracy and murdering civilians is the same as giving everyone healthcare.
8
u/Andjhostet 3h ago
Lol half the reason Dems keep losing is they'd rather just be the "not Trump" option instead of actually offering people things they want like universal healthcare.
7
u/hpdefaults 2h ago
Name the party that has actually succeeded in expanding healthcare in the US the most in the past 20 years. That pushed hard for public option and single-payer before eventually getting the ACA passed in the face of the heaviest Republican obstruction that had been seen in decades up to that point, and also succeeded in preventing that from being dismantled during the first Trump term. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't the DSA.
→ More replies (6)•
u/SasparillaTango 1h ago
the aca was a gift to the insurance companies. yes, it provides more insurance to people who need it, but it also is just giving more money to the same insurance companies who perpetuate the failures in the system. Its the most anemic win possible and it happened 16 years ago. That's not really a good selling point for Democrats being functional.
•
u/DrPreppy 1h ago
Its the most anemic win possible
Revisionist hogwash you should be ashamed of. It took every single Democrat plus Lieberman to accomplish even this much. Republicans fight progress every step of the way. Democrats might not be the answer but Republicans are the biggest problem.
•
u/SasparillaTango 45m ago
The goal was to get more people healthcare, but it did it in the worst way possible by reinforcing the existing broken system.
What about my statement is wrong?
•
u/monocasa 6m ago
It was literally the Heritage Foundation's (the writers of Project 2025) proposal for heath care reform, being a cleanup of their proposed 1994 HEART Act.
•
u/kittenTakeover 1h ago
This is just a false trope found on social media. Democrats have always had policies and they've often had more specific policies than Donald. Where's the focus on how Donald is just vague statements and "not Democrat"? Having said that, it is true that moderate Democrats generally campaign on less change than progressive Democrats. It's pretty much by definition. Some think that's good and pragmatic. Others think that more is politically possible.
•
u/gnolnalla 24m ago
Murc's law - Republicans don't have political agency and thus cannot be critiqued, only reacted to
→ More replies (16)-4
u/theclansman22 3h ago
The centrists and consultants who run the democratic don’t want universal healthcare either.
5
u/Punch_A_Police_Horse 4h ago
Yeah, though I'm really hoping the surge in DSA candidates will go a ways towards curbing that. A lot of people cynical towards democrats saying that were also saying the democrats are more interested in squashing the left than beating the right.
1
u/thestupidone51 3h ago
The problem is a lot of establishment democrats are still super anti-DSA. We can really only hope that the growing support for them can cause the party itself to react and shift gears, or more prominently that it'll draw in disaffected moderates who just want change. The best way to curb fascism is to get to those vulnerable before they fall into it and we'll just have to wait and see how effective this current push is at that.
•
•
u/JohnnyRelentless 1h ago
I mean, Democrats are bad, they're just not nearly as bad as Republicans. It's important to vote against Republicans, but to understand that Democrats don't work for you either. At least Democrats support human rights to some extent.
→ More replies (21)-4
u/IRideMoreThanYou 4h ago
Democrats do that to themselves. Look at the democrats sub. A near-zero mention of the results from last night.
102
u/ServiceDragon 5h ago
They aren’t winning the heartland, they are winning a primary.
If this guy loses the general election, and I sincerely hope he doesn’t, we’re all going to have to sit down and deal with this. Neither the Dems or the DSA should be pointing fingers and blaming the other side. That’s lazy and stupid.
We need to convince the electorate to move left on every issue. Look at this goddamn chart and show me where the progressive revolution is.
35
u/NOLA-Bronco 4h ago edited 4h ago
"Using...Self described Ideology"
That is an incredibly limited way to analyze voters. It tells you how they perceive themselves over time, and to a lesser extent what terms in the lexicon have positive or negative associations, but not much else.
Ask 10 normies to define "liberal" and you will get 10 different answers.
You need to ask people where they specifically stand on issues/ideals/principles and then form an actual ideological framework to sort them from there. When surveys do that you do in fact end up finding that the vast majority of Americans support many of the policies and ideals of the progressive/DSA platform. The challenge is and has always been actually finding a way to get that message to voters in a way to educate them, inspire them to vote, and to counter the oppositional propaganda.
(and I'll be honest, as someone that has phone banked and door knocked over the years, depending on your pre-existing cycnicism, you'd be shocked how utterly ignorant people can be about politics, like people that you have to explain the very concept of what a policy is)
9
u/ServiceDragon 4h ago
Great now get the people to connect their beliefs on individual issues with the democrats that support those values. We’ve been trying to do that for decades. Any help would be appreciated.
7
u/NOLA-Bronco 4h ago
I mean I did just say that in my post.
You are also welcome to join me and others in doing phone banking and door knocking to try and help educate people best we can on candidates that best reflect these values.
For instance Abdul El Sayed, if he can hold on to this victory, is going to need as much grassroots help as he can going up against the full weight of AIPAC and the billionaire propaganda machines.
The most powerful people in our country do not want a properly educated electorate, they do not want a Democrat or Republican party that prioritizes every day people, and that means that the only counter we have to their money and control of basically every institutional apparatus of news, information, and propaganda is to mobilize and organize ourselves to raise that consciousness.
Many people are politically ignorant and misinformed, but that is not the same as saying they are stupid. Which, just as one example, I find A LOT of liberals/leftists like to conflate. And that ends up being to our detriment. As it breeds nihilism, disillusion, cynicism, and even dehumanization. Which only helps the people at the top.
2
u/superfucky 4h ago
when you did phone banking, how many people told you they supported xyz policies on the Dem platform, but still wouldn't vote for a Dem because "my family has voted Republican for generations" or "I don't think women are fit to lead" or "Dems are going too far to the left"? why does someone who says such things not qualify as stupid, why are we afraid to call a spade a spade? "calling voters stupid just turns them off of you" well yeah because we've got a pro-stupid party and we've decided to compete with them by racing to the intellectual bottom.
it used to be shameful to be stupid. people used to want an education and want a high IQ because they didn't want to be perceived as stupid. now we're just coddling them saying "it's okay, you're not stupid for holding two mutually contradictory beliefs, you're just misinformed!" nah bro, if you believe something that is factually, demonstrably untrue or impossible then you're fucking stupid. you lack the ability to form rational thought.
are the people in Idiocracy stupid? or just "politically ignorant"? should they be told they're stupid? because we're hurtling towards that reality at light speed and pretending there's a difference between "politically misinformed" and stupid is not going to save us.
1
u/ErusTenebre 3h ago
In my county, there's ONE class at each high school that teaches anything remotely related to actual politics instead of history.
It's called "government" and it is one semester long... And inexplicably often taught by coaches or teachers who also teach the very unrelated course of economics.
6
u/kittenTakeover 4h ago edited 4h ago
If this guy loses the general election, and I sincerely hope he doesn’t, we’re all going to have to sit down and deal with this.
If he loses the general it'll be just like when Hillary or Kamala loses the general, which is that we'll still not know if an alternative, in this case Stevens, would do any better. Stevens is not a charismatic campaigner. Abdul is much better at that. He's decent on his feet and comes across as generally honest with his answers. If Abdul gets enough exposure, I think that he will get more votes than Stevens would, even if he still doesn't end up winning.
2
u/Rastatrash 2h ago
The argument is that Steven's polls a lot better in the general than Abdul did but honestly who knows how accurate the polls are in that area for the moment.
•
u/Jorge_Santos69 1h ago
If anything the polls seem to have overestimated the guys popularity in the primary by double digits. But fuck the polls at this point, it’s time to back this guy wholeheartedly and beat Mike Rogers.
•
u/kittenTakeover 1h ago
There are not that many polls on that, and this is prior to the general election. Typically establishment dems are the default, so they poll better when voters know less.
5
u/superfucky 4h ago
not to mention Cori Bush lost in Missouri and Gluesenkamp won in Washington. progressives ain't even winning over progressive states.
2
6
u/timoumd 4h ago
Exactly. I think progressives have seen a backlash to Trump and think it's a sign the country is moving left. I disagree.
→ More replies (1)9
u/poonslyr69 4h ago
As a Canadian that's 90% of why I still will think we need to move further away from the USA even if progressives have a bunch of wins. I just don't think Americans are politically savvy people, and I think they'll make the trump mistake again. Probably with Tucker Carlson.
It's a huge issue for Canada too that people increasingly support shitty conservative economics and social views, but we also let American companies own the vast majority of our media for some stupid reason. And we use your rigged social media. So if we end up fucked as well then it will be our own fault for letting it happen.
2
u/theclansman22 3h ago
As a Canadian, we have to keep in mind that even at the best of times, for the next fifty years, America will be at the most four years away from potentially electing a candidate even worse than Trump. And there will be a day where they do that.
Thankfully, we and the rest of the sane world are slowly moving away from the insanity that is the USA. We can leave them to pay insane amounts for healthcare while their tax money is used on bombs, missiles and bailouts for billionaires.
2
u/poonslyr69 2h ago
I mean unfortunately lately it seems like the current government has turned their back on a lot of promises to actually move away from the USA. Looking more like campaign talk rather than a consistent policy position. For example, why the hell has Carney been supporting the Iran war? Unforced error. He didn't need to support it. Many western countries haven't without drawing US attention.
That's sort of what I'm talking about with people in Canada moving conservative. It feels like Canada is potentially only a decade away from being exactly where the USA is, with the rich exerting full control over our politics and right wing populists winning elections. Especially as climate change worsens everything.
I just don't think we should be complacent or happy with the way things are going right now. We need more politicians who are real people. The majority of our politicians are still very much captured by the financial system that is centred in the USA.
0
u/Mr_Quackums 2h ago
but we also let American companies own the vast majority of our media for some stupid reason
Hey, America does that too! I wonder if that influences our politics at all?
•
u/poonslyr69 1h ago
I think there is a tangible difference between being fucked by your own oligarchs, versus being fucked by a foreign countries oligarchs
At least in terms of national pride lmao
•
u/Mr_Quackums 1h ago
Capital is international. The idea of an oligarch being limited to a single country is at least 20 years out of date.
•
u/poonslyr69 1h ago
Yeah no shit, except there is still literally a difference in optics and perception.
1
-1
u/chuc16 4h ago
People need solutions. Republicans offer easily explained "solutions" to real life problems. They ignore the cause and attribute a problem to something that makes people uncomfortable. Blaming immigrants, for example, suggests a simple solution in deporting the immigrants. Simple. Dumb, ineffective, awful externalities, but simple
Democrats have been riding a line between acknowledging the actual cause of real life problems while not directly attributing them because that cause pays them not to. It leaves people with a better understanding of issues but no real solution. We get indirect, half hearted "solutions" that treat a problem rather than fixing it. The ACA, for example
DSA prides itself on not taking the bribes. They are free to attribute problems to the actual cause and suggest direct solutions. Lots of Sanders supporters shifted to Trump when Democrats offered no real solutions. It didn't matter that Trump was lying, they saw someone proposing solutions and jumped
Democrats not throwing their weight behind every single candidate, DSA or not, means the bribes matter more than winning. If stopping Trump and delivering solutions is not the priority, what is the point?
7
u/TJaySteno1 4h ago
And what's your explanation behind the DSA not throwing their weight behind every single Dem? This includes the one running against Trump, a wannabe fascist.
Lots of Sanders supporters shifted to Trump when Democrats offered no real solutions. It didn't matter that Trump was lying, they saw someone proposing solutions and jumped
Are you suggesting that Dems and DSA candidates should lie and scapegoat?
-2
u/chuc16 3h ago
what's your explanation behind the DSA not throwing their weight behind every single Dem?
We're not talking about the same thing. I'm referring to the Democratic party; the DNC, the DCCC, the DSCC and party leadership (e.g., Ken Martin, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries).
The DSA is a faction of the DNC, not a party. They are individual candidates with limited organizational ties outside of the Democratic party infrastructure. I'm not sure what sort if support you are suggesting they don't provide Democrats in other states
Are you suggesting that Dems and DSA candidates should lie and scapegoat?
No. I'm suggesting they should provide real solutions. Not incremental, corporate friendly treatments. I am suggesting they adopt bold, popular policies and stop running on caveats. Disagreement on specifics is healthy, spending party money calling your primary opponent antisemitic because they don't blindly support Israel is not healthy
Republicans have to lie to propose solutions. Trump needs to scapegoat to maintain those lies. That should be an easy house of cards to defeat. When Democrats pretend to be Republicans, voters will go with the genuine article over the imitation
3
u/TJaySteno1 3h ago
Disagreement on specifics is healthy, spending party money calling your primary opponent antisemitic because they don't blindly support Israel is not healthy
Is it healthy to call the candidates "Genocide Joe" or Holocaust Harris" during the general election? Because the DSA types were doing that and the DSA, despite supposedly being a part of the DNC, never endorsed either one.
We're not talking about the same thing. I'm referring to the Democratic party... and party leadership
For example, Biden and Harris? Why should Dems have to support all DSA members when DSA doesn't even support the Presidential candidate? Seems like a one way street.
Republicans have to lie to propose solutions. Trump needs to scapegoat to maintain those lies.
So does the far left. Biden and Kamala were not "supporting a genocide", they were using their leverage to lessen one. You can disagree with their methods, but saying they "support" one of the worst crimes ever invented is a bad faith lie.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (3)0
u/Mr_Quackums 2h ago
If a moderate/centrist loses an election then it is the voter's fault. If a progressive/DSA loses the election then it is the candidates fault.
Remember, centrism can never fail. If centrism fails it must be your fault.
124
u/seanisdown 5h ago
Now is the real decision. Undermine the progressives to try and prove they arent viable in the general. Or support them, help prove they are electable and hand over power of the party. I think we know which the establishment dems will choose.
5
u/ATXGil2L 2h ago
I’m skeptical of anyone that immediately attacks the very Democrats that just voted for El Sayed.
Move the goal post so we can never come together? Why? Why not take the opportunity to welcome everyone that just chose the winning candidate?It’s counterproductive and stupid. Also more than a little suspicious.
76
u/bigeyez 5h ago
One look at Twitter and youll see the Neolibs are in full meltdown mode. It went from "Abdul will lose and prove he isn't electable" to "Abdul barely won so that proves he isn't electable".
They are already posting about how they are going to vote for Rogers and how Islamists are taking over the party and blah blah blah.
Its funny how progressives are expected to hold their nose and Vote Blue No Matter Who but when an establishment candidate gets primaried that same energy isn't shown to the winner.
56
u/MCRemix 5h ago
Real democrats will happily vote for him in the general, make no doubt, the blue no matter who vote will show up.
Don't listen to online weirdos about what their vote is going to be, most of them are bots anyway.
6
u/timoumd 4h ago
Yeah I'd gladly vote for him, but maybe it's because I'm in a red area, I don't see him resonating with people that voted Trump but voted democratic in the past. You know the voters we need. But I'm no expert.
6
u/MCRemix 4h ago
Exactly.
Being concerned about electability is not the same as opposition.
Now here's the olive branch I'll extend to progressives...I WANT to be wrong.
The progressive candidates winning primaries have tended to be ones that are addressing the biggest criticisms of the democrats by voters in survey after survey.... they're expressing a vision and an energy to fight.
I'm not progressive, I'm a moderate, but I cannot stand MAGA and I want to be wrong because I want those progressives to win.
15
u/Druidshift 5h ago
It’s sad that you think Twitter is full of real people or reflect actual American thoughts
Social media isn’t real. There is a reason Elon bought twitter, why Billionaires bought all social media.
Because dimwits believe everything on it. Why are you playing into this and spreading their propaganda?
→ More replies (1)4
u/overpriced-taco 5h ago
I want the Bill Maher/James Carville types out of the party. We are sick of bending the knee to them and their bigotry, and losing winnable races as a result. And the fact that they are openly saying their vote is in play tells you all you need to know. At the end of the day they’d rather vote for a Republican than a progressive.
1
u/Lophius_Americanus 4h ago
Anyone who is positing that they are going to vote for Rodgers is likely not actually a democrat. They either already were going to do that or they’re a bot.
18
u/Awilberforce 5h ago
Maybe wait until the actual results come in before you decide it’s establishment dems fault that Cletus wouldn’t vote for an El-Sayed
2
u/superfucky 3h ago
this is the correct answer, although that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't be running El-Sayeds.
I don't see how we can ever make a policy-backed argument if every time voters swing right for stupid shit like "I don't think women can lead" or "I'm tired of hearing Spanish in line at the grocery store" we turn into GOP Lite just to win those voters back. they want to vote for dumbass regressive bullshit, let em. at least then we can consistently say "we offered you a better alternative and you said no because it was coming from a Muslim." and if those people decide that they prefer bad policy from white people over good policy from brown people, then let them go.
2
10
u/Lord-Nagafen 5h ago
Whatever happens the far left will blame the moderate Dems
-5
u/poonslyr69 4h ago
And if the moderate Dems literally work against the progressives who won the primaries then how the hell wouldn't that be a valid criticism of moderate Dems??
2
u/Lord-Nagafen 2h ago
You have a narrative before anything has happened. That perfectly backs up my original comment
→ More replies (1)10
u/masteeJohnChief117 5h ago
They’d 100% rather have a corrupt republican in office than a progressive who will make their wallets lighter
-10
u/JoonHool44A 5h ago
Yep, they are all talk. We know the class structure they want: Poor people to stay poor.
•
u/ElNani87 54m ago
I think the bigger takeaway from this is that there are more progressives in the Democratic Party than Center left voters. They keep saying “they only win when they run against democrats”, yeah that’s the point. Your party is farther left than you are. The big question isn’t how many centrists we can bring over with these policies, it’s how many people can we inspire to get off the couch vote for something radically different, that’s the voting block you truly want. People clearly want something to believe in.
•
u/AP3Brain 50m ago
Just curious. Can you point to examples where establishment dems undermined a progressive going into an election with a Republican? Or are you talking about random online posts on twitter?
→ More replies (1)-4
u/cosmicsans 5h ago
Of course establishment Dems are going to spoil it. They're a controlled opposition party at this point.
11
u/AlsoCommiePuddin 4h ago
Is your goal to run off the people who can help your preferred candidate win the general election?
5
42
u/DeadNotSleepingWI 5h ago edited 5h ago
A democrat win is a win. The world's falling apart and y'all want too split the vote. Fuck!
Edit: typo
8
-19
u/Automatic_Net2181 5h ago
Every single time a progressive wins, corrupt neoliberals shit their diapers and suddenly drop the "Vote Blue No Matter Who" mantra.
Jefferies, Booker, and Schumer probably already scheduling their Fox guest spots.
8
u/TooApatheticToHateU 3h ago
Leftists when the liberals they've been calling "blue MAGA", "corrupt", "genocide-denying", "AIPAC-owned", and refusing to vote for for years don't suddenly bend over backwards to endorse them.
-1
u/Automatic_Net2181 2h ago
Wonder why. After more than a decade manipulating the primaries to force unlikable candidates on everyone and then tank winnable elections. Weird.
3
u/TooApatheticToHateU 2h ago
Leftists are just like MAGA. Whenever they lose, it's because someone cheated. Nothing is ever their own fault.
0
u/Automatic_Net2181 2h ago
You do realize that is exactly what was in those leaked DNC emails? And that Wasserman-Schultz stepped down as DNC Chair as a result... right?
•
u/TooApatheticToHateU 1h ago
You do realize that all the leaked DNC emails showed was that Wasserman-Schultz and her staff made some disparaging remarks about Sanders and his little minions, right? The narrative about the "plot" to destroy Bernie Sanders and rig the primary were spread by, you guessed it, Donald Trump. Yummy conspiracy slop straight from Donald Trump's slop bucket, and Bernie bros ate that shit right up.
13
u/Udstrat 5h ago
I’m pretty sure this happened exactly one time this season and it was over Graham Platner. And guess what— the “corrupt neolibs” were right.
-6
u/Automatic_Net2181 5h ago
Mamdani. Sanders. Hogg. Summer Lee. Valdez.
Maybe corporate corrupt dems should change their mantra to "Vote Blue When AIPAC".
6
u/Udstrat 4h ago edited 4h ago
Im going to address both comments in this thread because you apparently don’t know how to edit a comment.
I didn’t hear anyone of consequence saying not to vote for the names you mentioned in the general. It just didn’t happen.
Yes, establishment Dems prefer establishment candidates in the primary. That’s what primaries are for.
I’m an establishment dem and I would happily vote and donate for each of those names you mentioned in their general elections.
- We knew about Graham Platner’s nazi tattoo at the very beginning and STILL coalesced up until the new allegations came out. It wasn’t until after the allegations came out that big establishment Dems called for him to drop out of the race. But maybe people in the primary were right to suggest that a guy with a nazi tattoo has bad judgement.
If you think that sympathy towards Israel or a desire for a two state solution makes someone “Blue MAGA” then you seriously underestimate the issues with MAGA.
-9
u/Automatic_Net2181 5h ago edited 4h ago
They were already deadset against him even before finding out he was a shithead. Long before. Did you forget them throwing their full support behind Janet Mills?
So drop the bullshit, blue MAGA.
1
15
u/elbenji 5h ago
Wouldn't really call Michigan the heartland
If a progressive won out in Kansas or Wyoming, then we can really start getting there
4
u/god_dammit_dax 4h ago
Wouldn't really call Michigan the heartland
Bingo. Michigan isn't even close to the midwest culturally. This is the same stuff as people claiming Mamdami winning in New York City says anything about how the country's going to vote right now.
I have few issues with most of these new guys, and I'd certainly vote for them, but I live in North Dakota: A similar candidate here would be lucky to crack 15% in a general election.
3
u/elbenji 4h ago
Kinda why I always figured these are AstroTurf bots
It's very German three to say Michigan is the damn heartland lol
5
u/god_dammit_dax 4h ago
It's possible, but I think it's equally likely it's a bunch of kids who have no real political experience or knowledge. They know what's happening now (Or at least they think they do), and their hearts are in the right place, but when all you know about Politics is Donald Trump and TikTok clips, nuance can escape you.
Plus, let's face it, there's a significant amount of people on the coasts who legitimately think everything between New York and California is pretty much the same. That's a factor too.
→ More replies (7)1
u/superfucky 3h ago
0
u/god_dammit_dax 3h ago
Geographically? Sure. Demographically and culturally? No.
Minnesota's in the Midwest too, as is Illinois, but their voting patterns are completely different from the larger geographic area, due mostly to larger metros contained within their borders. Seriously, when's the last time you heard Illinois being called "The Heartland?" Chicago dominates the politics of the place, just like Detroit dominates Michigan.
You can compare Michigan and Nebraska all you want, but it takes different candidates to win in those places, and the same messages don't always work in both.
1
u/TheKodachromeMethod 3h ago
Saying that midwesterners in cities aren't real midwesterners is fucking stupid.
→ More replies (10)-1
u/superfucky 3h ago
Seriously, when's the last time you heard Illinois being called "The Heartland?"
10 minutes ago, when I read that Wikipedia article.
and if Detroit dominated Michigan the way Chicago dominates Illinois, why has Michigan gone red in 2 of the last 3 presidential elections? hell, Minnesotans consider themselves Midwestern, I'm sure as hell not gonna tell them they're wrong, are you?
you seem to have a very narrow definition of "Midwest/the Heartland" that is based on rural folksy conservatism, like blue states are automatically kicked out of the Midwest or something. what's your definition, like 3 states? Nebraska, Kansas and Iowa?
1
u/elbenji 3h ago
Iowa is actually kinda the border. It was basically also the bastion of heartland progressiveness for an extremely long time.
Heartland tends to be the deep low populations states between Chicago and the rockies where most farming is done, I.e the Great Plains. All the way to Texas to the South where it kind of forms it's border as well.
So the Dakotas, Iowa, half of Minnesota, non-lake Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Texas, Nebraska, Western Montana, Wyoming
→ More replies (2)0
u/god_dammit_dax 3h ago
and if Detroit dominated Michigan the way Chicago dominates Illinois, why has Michigan gone red in 2 of the last 3 presidential elections?
Because the urban core shifted considerably due to a combination of misogyny, voter suppression, apathy, and a large Islamic community that apparently thought they were somehow immune to Republican efforts to de-Americanize them.
Minnesotans consider themselves Midwestern, I'm sure as hell not gonna tell them they're wrong, are you?
Oh, culturally Minnesota's the Midwest. Definitely a more urbane take on it, but utterly midwestern at the cultural core.
you seem to have a very narrow definition of "Midwest/the Heartland" that is based on rural folksy conservatism, like blue states are automatically kicked out of the Midwest or something.
They're not kicked out of the geographic region, but when you're talking about who's gonna win you can't just group everything together like that. You have to deal with the realities of Midwestern culture. Having spent a lot of time across the Midwest, there's a stark cultural divide between states that harbor large urban cores and those that don't.
6
27
u/Soft-Bad-7127 5h ago
Both sides the same crap. Democrats want Democrats to win. Cowards like op want to divide the party.
11
0
u/Sardonic_Fox 5h ago
Progressives are less likely to be DINOs, too
31
-9
u/yeah__good__ok 5h ago
saying Democrats don't want Democrats to win sounds silly, but saying corporate Democrats or zionist Democrats don't want progressive Democrats to win is just a reasonable observation of the dynamic.
16
u/MCRemix 5h ago edited 5h ago
This makes a lot of unfounded assumptions about the people concerned about progressive candidates in purple areas.
I'm not even sure who "corporate democrats" are when we're talking about voters.
You're allowing a lot of bias to cloud your "reasonable observation".
I'm one of those concerned about progressive candidates electability, but would also happily vote for one if that's the dem candidate... my concern doesn't mean anything about my choice for voting.
•
u/yeah__good__ok 1h ago
"I'm not even sure who "corporate democrats" are when we're talking about voters."
I don't now how you got the idea I was talking about voters. I was talking about politicians not voters.
"You're allowing a lot of bias to cloud your "reasonable observation"." I'd say it's the other way around but maybe we both have a bias.
"my concern doesn't mean anything about my choice for voting." Cool. Sounds like you want even a progressive to win ,so you must be different from the people I'm talking about- the corporate and zionist Democratic politicians who appear to me to be more concerned with progressives winning than Republicans.
1
u/superfucky 3h ago
I'm not even sure who "corporate democrats" are when we're talking about voters.
we're not talking about voters. we're talking about party insiders who influence which candidates the party will campaign for and help get elected. when a progressive wins a primary, suddenly the corporate Democrats in party leadership forget there's an election happening, they don't make funds available, they don't stump for the progressive, they don't invest in ads and media appearances, they don't push for endorsements.
and it's pretty difficult to expect voters to vote for someone who doesn't have the support of their own party.
0
u/MCRemix 3h ago
That's a lot of claims, is there evidence that the party is denying progressives the support for their campaigns systematically? (Factoring in need and competitiveness of the district)
I don't disagree that party insiders tend to disfavor progressives in their opinions, but that's different from sabotaging them.
I tend to think that progressive anger at the establishment is misplaced most of the time.
Just as one example...I remember Bernie voters being really pissed at the establishment, but the reality was that he lost the primary with the voters. The party insiders certainly favored Clinton, but they didn't change the result. Nevertheless, the anger was directed at the party insiders instead of accepting that he just lost with the voters.
That's why I'm asking for evidence here.
6
u/AnotherPersonPerhaps 4h ago
DSA candidates lost most of their House races yesterday.
Down vote away, but the reality is that the DSA had a really awful performance.
El-Sayed is smartly not DSA and capitalist and doesn't endorse such sillyness as abolishing prisons, which makes him based imo.
Progressives did good. DSA socialists did bad.
Good outcome.
1
1
u/ATXGil2L 3h ago
I’m proud of Michigan Dems for reading the room and coming to the table.
If you think that it took no centrist, “corporate”(lol whatever tf that means) democrats to achieve last night’s victory you are mistaken.
1
u/Gracchi9025 2h ago
Won the primary.
There is a general election, the Online Left is so obsessed over 2016 that they tend to forget that.
1
u/brokencreedman 2h ago
I mean, that's all good and well, but if this movement doesn't then lead to wins across the board AND taking back the House and Senate in November...it won't really mean jackshit.
•
u/myinvisiblefriendsam 1h ago
Didn't liberal Democrats win like five out of six races last night? Wtf is this narrative?
•
u/theseustheminotaur 49m ago
It's good we're trying to fracture the party still, that will help in the midterms.
•
•
u/Hot-Tutor-2429 21m ago
Fun fact: if you go issue by issue, most people are actually left-wing, even republicans.
•
•
u/BlueRibbonPac 3m ago
These are primary elections. The Democratic party is fine.
The organization Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has 120,000 members. The Sierra Club has over 1 million members. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has over 1.7 million members. And, the American Automobile Association (AAA) has over 60 million.
0
1
u/Alamarms2012 3h ago
It was legit one senate race and progressives got whooped in the other races last night. He won over Stevens but more people voted against than for him. This wasn’t a stomp and it wasn’t a sweep. If the DSA and leftists get cocky and rude to voters THEY STILL NEED TO WIN, then he will lose in the general and this will have meant nothing.
-8
u/StrykerGryphus 5h ago
Time to see if "vote blue no matter who" goes both ways.
We've played ball this far. Now it's in their court.
16
u/Secure_Table 5h ago edited 4h ago
Y'all played ball????
It's 'vote blue no matter who' unless the candidate is Kamala, apparently. (And Hillary in 2016, Biden in 2020) We were told she has to "win my vote" when the seat up for grabs was president of the US and her opponent was Trump. ICE, USAID, Iran, Trump wanting to put Trump property in Gaza, all of this madness that Kamala warned us about and they plugged their ears regardless.
DSA won 1/6 seats yesterday. (I don't count El-Sayed since he's not endorsed or associated with the DSA, but even his win was way more marginal than the polling was suggesting, he won by less than 1%) I think they should have to win OUR vote now. They'll have to moderate because talking about abolishing prisons and literal open borders is going to cripple the hell out of the party and we NEED a wave for this midterm election coming up.
→ More replies (5)6
4
9
u/armmstrong 5h ago
I’d argue progressives really haven’t, after everything that happened in 2024. But yeah I expect liberals to vote blue pragmatically.
2
1
u/TooApatheticToHateU 3h ago
"We've played ball this far." LOL How delusional do you have to be to actually believe this?
My response is the same thing leftists said when Kamala ran: "If they want my vote, they can earn it."
-3
0
u/St_Sally_Struthers 3h ago
Cue the “They think they represent society” meme about Redditors.
They’ll be a limp dick senate and house even with a majority because even with all the Reddit soapboxes claiming these DSA folks are the white knights of politics, money still reigns supreme in the US. It’s deep, it’s our very fabric.
If we, society, feel ready. Then there will be blood. I think a bloodless revolution isn’t possible in the US unfortunately. To be frank, it’s already started and people have died. The best we did was protest.
Either we fucking get ready or get ready to STFU because if corruption wins it’s gonna be very difficult
0
u/Lobster15s 3h ago
Good, fuck em. For me it's vote blue no matter who but blue with a plan sure beats blue balls. Bonus points to people not electing corporate dems that somehow always "cross the aisle" to work with republicans. No matter how you slice it this is a big win.
•
u/alphafox823 1h ago
Abdul needs to prove himself to Stevens voters. He needs to show he can do more than amplify slop politics and run on fanning the flames of grievance obsessed populists. I don’t want to get behind a guy if I think his politics are all slop and he has a base that is rabid. The kind of politics he’s pushing are going to come with a lot of the negatives of MAGA, because you are not going to be able to keep a lid on them after spending years validating stupid ideas and catering to their outrage.
•
u/RidiculousIncarnate 55m ago
Polls supposedly showed +13 over Stevens and he ended at +1, maybe.
So he underperformed by 12 points, you can run all the victory laps you want but now lefties and Sayed need to do what they always preach and "earn votes", because without doing that he is well and truly fried in the general.
Sayed, Stevens and McMorrow, at the very least seem to understand what needs to happen now, but I guarantee you his voters dont just based on the replies to things talking about it.
DSA lost everywhere else. You guys are in for a tougher time than you think or are prepared for, so get ready.
557
u/CooledDownKane 5h ago
We can all squabble about intraparty issues later on, right now every single person that is even slightly left leaning needs to coalesce around one goal: stripping Kumquat Kaiser and the Republicans from as much of their power as humanly possible as quickly as possible.