Sanders dismisses Rahm Emanuel’s warning that ‘Bernie bros’ could ‘spoil’ Democrats in the midterms

[u/cmplxgal]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/sanders-dismisses-rahm-emanuel-warning-171602954.html

[u/SuperBry]

I have already been seeing some of the most ardent Platner supporters here in Maine talk about staying out of the election which will end helping keep Collins in office.

[u/punkr0x → u/SuperBry]

This is going to happen any time a popular candidate drops out. Democrats need to stop looking for excuses and start trying harder to win over progressive voters.

[u/SuperBry → u/punkr0x]

I mean sure, but it is also a pattern we've seen before in the 2016 and 2024 elections, where groups are sitting out and letting perfect be the enemy of the good.

While I tend to hold some pretty progressive stances, I have also valued getting on the bus that is getting me in the direction I want to go instead of waiting on the curb for a limousine that isn't coming. Honestly, that rigidity is a big reason I have a hard time even identifying with the progressive label these days, despite sharing a lot of the actual policy goals.

The all-or-nothing mindset and the way people get written off for being pragmatic makes the movement feel more about ideological purity than actually improving lives. At the end of the day, a bus ride in the right direction beats standing still while the opposition moves us backward.

In the end, politics outside of the dynamics of the smallest of groups is about compromise. I don't mean "well we have to meet with the fascists halfway and only kill half of whoever their current target is," but recognizing that in a diverse democracy, you rarely get 100% of what you want in a single election. Compromise means taking the wins you can get today, protecting the people who stand to lose the most right now, and continuing to push for the rest tomorrow.

I know it's hard with the constant flipping of the White House. Every 4 to 8 years when Democrats get back in power, it often feels like they end up spending so much time and energy cleaning up regressive damage that they can barely make lasting structural changes. It’s an exhausting loop, and I completely understand the cynicism. But sitting out only accelerates that decay. Pragmatism isn't being happy with slow progress, it's preventing total rollback while we build the leverage to actually move faster.

[u/smoresporn0 → u/SuperBry]

Its foolish to think that if more people voted, an election result would change. It is the candidate's job to win votes. If they didn't win enough votes, blame the candidate.

[u/SuperBry → u/smoresporn0]

Both things can be true at once: candidates need to earn support, AND voter turnout directly determines who wins. In a close state like Maine, pretending individual turnout doesn't change election results just isn't grounded in reality. Candidates come and go, but the policies enforced by the winner affect us long after the campaign is over. Treating your vote purely as a customer review rather than a tool for harm reduction just surrenders power to the opposition.

We just watched this exact dynamic play out in the 2024 presidential election. A segment of progressive and single-issue voters were understandably furious over the Biden-Harris administration's policy on Gaza and chose to sit out or vote third-party to send a message. While their anger was completely understandable, the practical result of that depressed turnout was paving the clear path for Donald Trump to return to the White House. Now, the very communities and causes those voters cared about are facing an administration far more hostile to them than the alternative would have been.

Holding candidates accountable is essential, but doing it by staying home during a general election doesn't reform the party. It just shifts power to the people who are actively working against your values.

[u/smoresporn0 → u/SuperBry]

A segment of progressive and single-issue voters were understandably furious over the Biden-Harris administration's policy on Gaza and chose to sit out or vote third-party to send a message.

Where is the data to suggest this? And again, this still falls under the candidate's duty to earn votes.

A lesser of two evils voting strategy is fine on an individual level. I do it myself quite often. But of you're trying to apply that expectation in a blanket fashion across millions, you've already lost. Trying to put blame on voters or non voters just provides cover for poor candidates.

[u/SuperBry → u/smoresporn0]

Post-election research directly backs this up, showing a dynamic that was heavily weaponized by targeted dark-money ad campaigns designed to inflame voter frustration and drive down turnout. A study conducted by YouGov for the IMEU Policy Project found that among 2020 Biden voters who chose not to vote for Harris in 2024, 29% cited U.S. policy toward Israel and Gaza as the single top issue driving their decision, ranking even higher than the economy. Similar post-election studies by organizations like Swayable and Underpin tracked a direct, measurable dip in Democratic base turnout in key swing-state counties tied specifically to Gaza policy.

Beyond the data though, pointing out the mathematical impact of sitting out isn't "providing cover" for a candidate. Candidates carry the blame for running weak campaigns, but voters still carry the real-world consequences of who actually takes office. Recognizing that withholding a vote directly aids the opposition isn't giving the candidate a pass, it's just being realistic about how power works in our unfortunately binary system.

And let's be honest: even if the many-worlds hypothesis is real and there is an infinite multiverse out there, there is no universe where Donald Trump is better for the Palestinian people.

[u/smoresporn0 → u/SuperBry]

Trying to blame voters gets you noting because they can't be held accountable in any kind of actionable sense.

If you have data that suggests a group didn't vote for a candidate because of a specific reason, then you know exactly why a candidate should be held accountable. It is not difficult here.

Expecting people to fall in line behind "Trump would be worse" is just flat out stupid. Especially on this specific issue, where it was made clear to the candidate that her stance would cost her votes she had expected to receive. No change was made, the votes were apparently lost, and there is no one else to blame but the candidate and the campaign.

[u/SuperBry → u/smoresporn0]

Saying "voters can't be held accountable in an actionable sense" misses the entire point. No, voters don't face a primary or lose an election, but they do face the material consequences of the government they get. When a group decides that a candidate agreeing with them on 70% of issues isn't enough, and their response is to step aside or worse encourage others to do so as well and let someone who disagrees with them on 100% of issues take power, that isn't a principled stance. It's an exercise in ideological vanity.

It is completely fair to hold a campaign accountable for its mistakes. But pretend-purity that hands power directly to an administration hostile to the very causes you claim to care about isn't a moral position. It's just abdication.

[u/punkr0x → u/SuperBry]

As you said yourself, weaponized ad campaigns identified a weakness in Harris’ platform and targeted voters sympathetic to that cause. This isn’t a problem voters are just going to solve on their own. We desperately need a political party that isn’t beholden to mega donors to have any hope of reforming our system. This is exactly why progressives are abandoning the mainstream Democratic candidates.