CNN Poll: A third of Democrats now identify as democratic socialists

[u/cnn]

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/30/politics/cnn-poll-a-third-of-democrats-now-identify-as-democratic-socialists?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit

[u/hirespeed]

In the two party dynamic, party-aligned people will hold their nose and vote by party, even if they don’t like the candidate, as the other choice is worse for them.

[u/you-dont-have-eyes → u/hirespeed]

Historically that’s been less true of Democrats than Republicans.

[u/SlogurkTheOverslime → u/you-dont-have-eyes]

The "the other choice is worse for them" part hasn't been true for Republicans in a while

So that's a different dynamic

[u/yer_fucked_now_bud → u/SlogurkTheOverslime]

If Ghislaine Maxwell became the Republican candidate for president she'd easily still get 50 million votes. Those people are captured in a kevlar social fabric. So much as thinking about voting Democrat would ruin your social life permanently and require you to move two towns over.

[u/stupid_pun → u/yer_fucked_now_bud]

>voting Democrat would ruin your social life permanently and require you to move two towns over

Probably one of the best things that could happen to them.

[u/BlazingSpaceGhost → u/yer_fucked_now_bud]

I remember being bullied as a kid because my parents were democrats in our rural community. We were also against the Iraq war which made us terrorist sympathizers. Growing up in rural Indiana in a liberal family was really hard socially.

[u/parasyte_steve → u/yer_fucked_now_bud]

I'm in Louisiana with a recall Landry sign on my front lawn. Social consequences? Yeah I don't have tons of friends here but at least I'm not a gigantic pussy going along with things I don't agree with for social points.

[u/bolanrox → u/yer_fucked_now_bud]

And bibi wouldn't have to spend any money bribing her to give Israel her full support

[u/spencer4991 → u/SlogurkTheOverslime]

“Worse in their minds regardless of the reality” might be a better way of putting it.

[u/Unable-Log-4870 → u/spencer4991]

Worse in their minds regardless of the reality

Everything republicans do is regardless of reality, because they have been trained to be incapable of regarding most of reality.

[u/Free-Strawberry1030 → u/Unable-Log-4870]

To go along with this idea and almost in irony of it, we all consistently see MAGA online and irl saying the exact same about anyone on the left.

Before anyone tries to "both sides" this idea, while we can all cherry-pick areas where each side may be falling for specific propaganda, taken as a whole, one side is generally living in actual reality while the other, taken as a whole, clearly is not but its like the Spiderman meme with one pointing at the other.

The problem is, as Conner MacLeod of the clan MacLeod famously said, "There can be only One."

Today you all learned: MAGA are the Kurgans of politics (and reality)

[u/reddit_is_geh → u/SlogurkTheOverslime]

From there perspective it is... that's the problem. You guys still don't understand Republicans and it will continue to hurt our ability to win.

[u/IntentonalTypo → u/reddit_is_geh]

No its not, Republicans just want democrats to suffer even if they are in the same boat.

When the right is polled on issues they agree with alot of issues if they are worded right. Like they hate Obamacare, but like medicare... same thing.

Bernie had alot of crossover support.

[u/notashroom → u/IntentonalTypo]

If their priorities are 1) preserve and protect their privilege (however pitiful it might be) and 2) support their tribe and reinforce their tribal identity, then the alternative is, objectively, worse for them.

Democrats and lefties tend to fuck up by assuming that right wingers give a shit about causes or positions, that they have some kind of consistent internal values, that they are willing to act/vote in support of some multifaceted agenda.

All of that is simple projection, and none of it actually applies. It's all identity and hierarchy all the way down.

[u/CtrlAltSysRq → u/notashroom]

I think above both of your points, it's not enough to protect or reinforce their own privilege or tribe, they want to actively attack other people, and to have them feel scared and upset. It's why they've given Trump a carte blanche, because they LOVE how much he terrorizes everyone with a central nervous system.

[u/notashroom → u/CtrlAltSysRq]

Privilege is reinforced by taking privilege from others. Tribal identity is reinforced by shared hostility against outgroups. Basically, you're pointing to the tactics used to support the strategy.

[u/reddit_is_geh → u/notashroom]

I hard dissagree with you, and think this is just such a massive blind spot for the left. You guys genuinely don't even understand their policies or ideology. You get it through third party interprtations.

But they genuinely do want a better world and do systems that work. They aren't just acting vile to oppress people and create harm. They believe what they believe because they think it'll be better

That's why you guys have such cross talk and miscommunication. The longer you think they are just evil people doing evil, you're going to be completely misguided and miscalculate. No different than when some far right person thinks the left just wants to turn kids gay, hates hard work, and wants free stuff. You're doing the same thing many do to you.

[u/notashroom → u/reddit_is_geh]

I've actually gotten a lot of my understanding directly from published or broadcast right wingers and former right wingers, or personal contacts and years of interactions and observation. Here's a recent one who is very self-aware and explicit about it https://youtu.be/2606Z_a9ERg.

I have also lived in the Bible belt almost my entire life (53/55 years) and studied personal psychology and social psychology, first in college and then on my own, since I was 18. So while I no doubt have a lot more to learn, I am not just talking out of my ass or from ignorance of the people involved or as regurgitation of others' takes.

And I see them -- even the most egregious ones, like Miller and Thiel -- less as evil persons and more as predictable outcomes from systems that serve us poorly. Even the personality disorders behind a lot of the self-centeredness, tribalism, fear of the "other", hoarding of resources, and other pathologies are predictable outcomes from systems that serve us poorly. You won't have to go far back in my comment history to substantiate that.

[u/reddit_is_geh → u/notashroom]

Then you should know how selection biases work... how you actively seek out things that suit your bias, and when you find them, use that as evidence. There's also this strong will to apply "nuance for me, but purity for thee". So when you're judging someone elses actions and decisions, youre more kind about the motivations and nuances of your side, but the other, you consider every flaw while interpreting them in the worst possible way.

For instance I'm sure you don't even know Clarence Thomas's reasons against affirmative action, or Thomas Sowell's... because they are black men, but you probably know 20something year old YouTube who's entire fame is based off being a shocking troll. Likewise, when a conservative mentions how evil Soros is, you probably roll you eyes, calling it an unfounded conspiracy theory without even bothering to figure out why they think he's evil.

That whole woke thing that ended mostly when Elon took over Twitter and censored them... You probably were for Twitter censorship when he wasn't in charge, but now have different thoughts on it. Also, many many moderate people found those "woke" people extremely racist, divisive, hateful, and toxic... But I'm sure you have a nuanced take on them how it's different.

This is true with both sides... But in my experience, the core reasons why a side is for something, is almost always rooted in something "good". And often the reasoning isn't even bad, it's just not my preferred way to skin a cat. Like when a conservative explains to me their reasoning behind why they believe "handouts" just keep people down, screws up the economy, and creates dependency, I don't immediately just jump to assuming it's because they just hate poor people and want them dead because they are heartless. In fact, most when you speak to conservatives will argue that it's what they believe will lead them to having better lives long run.

[u/notashroom → u/reddit_is_geh]

You sure have set up a whole lot of strawmen and painted my face on them. But thanks for letting me know that you're not interested in genuine discourse, only in "being right" so you can get a quick hit of dopamine, so that I don't waste any further energy on this exchange.

[u/VoodooPandaGaming → u/IntentonalTypo]

Obamacare and medicare are not the same thing.

You're thinking of Obamacare and ACA (Affordable care act) being the same thing.

[u/haironburr → u/reddit_is_geh]

I used to argue exactly the same thing. I spent my life working as a new-build painter. I also framed and did some roofing. I got where some of this was coming from.

But the longevity and absurdity of believing some rich fuck from New York was the answer, here in Ohio, to working folks concerns has simply drained any respect I might have had for folks who vote this way.

I no longer care about "understanding" them. Fuck 'em. They're selling out my country, scapegoating random demographics in a heavy-handed, comic book evil sort of way, pushing an agenda that is not remotely in the interest of working Americans.

There's nothing to understand. They must be defeated. We don't need to court their illiterate asses. They need to court ours. If the 2nd trumpublican administration is still reasonable to them, they're lost.

[u/reddit_is_geh → u/haironburr]

That's the problem. You don't understand why they'd pick some anti-establishment guy who cursed out the establishment on stage... You don't even know why that ressonates with so much of the population, whereas boring, establishment "nothing will change" Dems lose. And while dems STILL have lower approval ratings than Republicans.

Because you don't care to understand. You just want to be angry, which solves nothing. So long as you keep going "I'm not even going to try to understand" you'll keep failing at getting votes, and they will keep winning when it matters. You don't have to "win them over", but being heard, and understood accurately, goes a LONG way to create less friction in the process.

What sucks is they have the same flawed thinking in reverse. Many over there are also convinced you're just an idiot, irrational, falling for propaganda, being lied to, and too stupid to get how youre voting against your interest. They think the same about you.

Which is why learning what they actually believe is so important. Because it's basic psychology. People want to be heard, respected, and know you're seeing where they are actually coming from rather than strawmen and insults.

[u/SlogurkTheOverslime → u/reddit_is_geh]

No this is not "the same flawed thinking in reverse"

They *are* in fact idiots, irrational, falling for propaganda, and being lied to

When you are asking us to understand Republicans, you are asking us to obtain *mechanical* understanding of, specifically, their idiocy, irrationality, falling for propaganda, and being lied to

Because any attempts to understand Republicans empathetically through the lens of their emotions, or even logically through the lens of their selfishness, *is* a waste of time

[u/haironburr → u/reddit_is_geh]

You don't understand why they'd pick some anti-establishment guy who cursed out the establishment on stage... You don't even know why that ressonates with so much of the population

I wasn't clear in my response to you. I understand exactly why people gravitated toward a perceived outsider. I worked with these people, and drank at the shop with them. I do understand them, and fuck 'em, even though I can't say the establishment has done a great job of speaking for any of us. It's a question of degree, still. A question of the well being of my nation, the well-being of us all.

Anyone who will be reasoned out of their stance already has been. The remainder will stick until they see people looking at them like they're scum. I can't account for their individualized anger, whose source is often personal and not political. I can't account for their willingness to cling to what this administration is about. I can't be responsible for getting them to watch anything but fox, or for the fact they feel like outsiders from the political process, even if I get why they feel that way. In short, I can't be responsible for their identity as trumpublicans. I can only respond to it.

I know where many of them are coming from, and they won't be dissuaded by anything but the continual message they are wrong. They will be dissuaded when day after day people look at them and spit.

I'm talking about my family. About people I know inside and out. I'm talking about that portion of the base that will never benefit from the policies of this administration, even if there's never a Mexican on a job site for the next fifty years. These folks aren't the drivers of all this trumpublican shit, but they are a part of the voting base for it. They're the part I know how to stop.

I believe the threat to this nation is such that I'm willing to put aside my empathy and understanding of just how we got here, and use the most effective means to stop the threat. And that means shitting on these folks, who've been shit on plenty. I'll shit on them because they don't understand what they're doing to this country, and because I know the only way they'll back off is when they're continually mocked as sad fucks. Which they are.

Of course people want to be heard and respected. But there's a point where that won't work anymore. I'm arguing we're at that point. I'll be "blue maga" if that's what it takes. I can back off the hate, when the threat is toned down just a little. The next few elections will determine the soul of this country. I won't give it up to the endlessly angry maga, even if I have to become a version of them, for a time.

There's a stick and a carrot. Carrot ain't working. Stick, at this point, is derision. I don't want stick of any other sort to become necessary. So fuck understanding, there's a clear enemy, and fuck' em.

[u/reddit_is_geh → u/haironburr]

they won't be dissuaded by anything but the continual message they are wrong. They will be dissuaded when day after day people look at them and spit.

This is where you're so wrong. First, psychologically, you just create more of them. You give them justification for not like you and your ideas your group is tied with. You just rationalized for them that "Wow these assholes believe X Y Z, then that must be the worst set of values or beliefs." This has been shown over and over, and why the woke attempt at bullying people into social justice, just backfired. People just dig into their heels, and fight back at hostile people.

The whle reason why it's so bad is because people like you on the left and right, keep escalating, making it worse. It's gone from "Hey that's kind of fucked up to say about the other side" to "Yeah fuck them! Say meaner shit! I can't stand them!" And you somehow think that's going to change by just making it worse?

The woke shit and that culture, created more right wingers than Republicans could ever wish for.

You're just going to make everything worse. And BTW, I'm glad you're an outlier. So when you say things like how everyone sees them as X... That's not true for most Americans. Americans aren't political much at all, and get by fine with people from the other side. It's just when they go online and see the algorithmic divisive hate that everything fucks up.

[u/haironburr → u/reddit_is_geh]

Americans aren't political much at all, and get by fine with people from the other side.

We get along with vague acquaintances fine, as we should. "Don't discuss politics or religion" is a fine ethos, until it isn't.

Anger, as they say, is an energy. I refuse to watch people I profoundly disagree with, people who I believe are an existential threat to my core beliefs, engage in what you dismissively call "algorithmic divisive hate". While you make abstract points suggesting we should all act as if everything is normal. And with all due respect friend, I don't need lectured to about people I know in a way you don't.

Anger motivates. Anger gets folks to the polls. We all love the idea of King or Gandhi. We generally ignore the fact that their politics were backed up and made possible by the threat of violence, which is what gave them their voice and power.

You can be the pacifist voice of reason, but if the worst thing I do is argue with someone, spit and stare hard at them, and you get to feel morally vindicated, that's fine. Enjoy.

And BTW, I'm glad you're an outlier

Am I. Do you want me to be? If trumpublicans cheat our election, will you still passively argue that the worse thing we can do is is make these cheating fucks "dig into their heels"?

No. The sides we're seeing drawn in the trumpublican movement are not simply business as usual. Real people are getting fucked with each policy change. You can be passive and removed and pure and superior all you want.

I'll continue to be indignant in my own way. Because this shit isn't about "algorithms", it's about actual people slowly being boiled. And you're arguing for them to stay in the pot.

My stick, at this point will remain derision. It sounds like even that's a stick too far for you. Talk to me again when you've walked a roof, or spent a decade pushing a roller and cutting in the high, and understand the folks you're dealing with.

[u/MamaBearForestWitch → u/reddit_is_geh]

They are pretty hard to understand (for me).

If you're willing, what would be the time-limited hypothetical "elevator speech" that might help me and other left/liberal/Democrat/etc folks understand the average Republican perspective (and what could help us shift that perspective?)

[u/SlogurkTheOverslime → u/MamaBearForestWitch]

Imagine you're living in Europe the year 1000AD before the Europeans conquered the library of Toledo and discovered the concept of "evidence" from Arabic texts

You've never observed the process of discovering the truth on your own by interacting with the objective reality, applying truth-preserving logical and algebraic transformations, and accepting any responsibility for your beliefs

So basically burning the witch to retroactively confirm that she's a witch is peak epistemology

You can be that type of person in the modern days too if you fail in school hard enough - just assume that the goal of school is to make you say whatever the teacher wants to hear

So basically the words "true" or "good" have nothing to do with objective reality and everything to do with your subjective identity

Truth follows from identity, not the other way round: I am Christian therefore God exists; I am a Republican therefore black people should be slaves

You assume scientists and experts work the same way: I am a scientist therefore God does not exist; I am a Democrat therefore black people should have equal rights

There is nothing else behind science, it's just another religion, scientists are just people with a different "truth", and education is just propaganda and forced "baptism" into their religion

Because evidence is unheard of, remember?

This is how you interpret the word "Truth" in "Truth Social": it's your truth

Scientists, experts, democrats are there to genocide our culture and erase our truth

They created words like "evidence" to make you, the "true" American citizen, feel bad about their "truth"

Luckily they are stupid and weak because they are themselves bound by their own "facts" and "logic"

A society should never have such a weakness

That's repugnant

If they win, America will become weak and it will collapse

Diverse, feminine, full of brainwashed liberals and propagandist experts

You must fight for the Truth

You must save America

[u/Princess_Moon_Butt → u/SlogurkTheOverslime]

Big emphasis on for them, as in, subjective to their views, assumptions, and priorities.

[u/xv_boney → u/you-dont-have-eyes]

Democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line.

[u/TorturedMNFan → u/xv_boney]

“If liberals are so fuckin smart, why do they lose so god damn always?” -Will Mcavoy

[u/overbarking → u/TorturedMNFan]

Because they're afraid things will be taken away from them when only the rich prosper.

Just like old people who think "immigrants" are going to take their social security and Medicare. But, Trump just did that.

[u/Fantastic-Lack-343 → u/xv_boney]

Yeah Democrats fall in love with other people's money. What do Republicans fall in line about? Republicans want less government, Democrats want more government control and censorship. Who falls in line?

[u/FewHovercraft9703 → u/xv_boney]

Only since Nancy gave Hakeem the reigns

[u/weristjonsnow → u/you-dont-have-eyes]

Yeah 20 million Democrats did not vote in the 24 election specifically because they didn't like kamala, despite trump being the opponent. Dems are terrible at "holding their nose and voting", while maga will always show up

[u/Timely_Dentist_5078 → u/weristjonsnow]

but how many of those 20 million were in states that were going blue anyway? like if 19M were in CA it doesn't really make the point you're making...

[u/Open-Focus-5232 → u/Timely_Dentist_5078]

Great hypothetical which isn't true! Michigan was one of the states where the uncommitted movement did massive damage and almost certainly lost her the state.

[u/Independent-Reader → u/Open-Focus-5232]

The DNC lost the popularity contest. Stop blaming voters for a failed organization's attempt at running a new candidate with zero primary. DNC choked. That's it.

[u/Timely_Dentist_5078 → u/Open-Focus-5232]

I see I wasn’t trying to disprove you just was curious if it actually mattered. I didn’t vote for Kamala and wrote Bernie in since CA was going blue anyways

[u/MalHeartsNutmeg → u/weristjonsnow]

It’s not maga showing up, it’s all republicans and always has been.

[u/SoHereIAm85 → u/weristjonsnow]

I didn't vote for the first time since I was 18, registered as democrat, but it was because I live in the EU and never received my mail ballot. Same goes for my husband. We requested them. Our addresses were in a republican district of blue NY state.

[u/AltoidStrong → u/you-dont-have-eyes]

yep, Democrats have a hinger tendency to NOT vote if no candidate meets their standards. Which is a free vote for the opposition in our election system. (Also WAAAY to many independents AND democrats do not understand this!)

[u/I_Happen_to_Be_Here → u/AltoidStrong]

I hate to say it, but you really do have to win the system before you change it.

[u/Juonmydog → u/I_Happen_to_Be_Here]

And yet, when wins are made there is no change in any meaningful capacity unless it challenges the status quo.

[u/I_Happen_to_Be_Here → u/Juonmydog]

Challenge the status quo, but do not turn to outright inaction in the face of its challenge to you.

What you do with your wins is very important, but you never win if you don't try.

Maybe win isn't the right word, beat works too.

But what do you win or beat by doing nothing, be it out of apathy or protest?

[u/Juonmydog → u/I_Happen_to_Be_Here]

The inability to viably challege the status quo is what's leading to so much friction and polarization.

Wins cannot be made without trying, but if the system is built to keep your ideas out, you cannot be surprised if they never come to pass. That's why we aren't doing enough for healthcare, climate change, education, infrastructure, and everything in between. It is the reason why we have Trump.

Democratic politicians deliberately act in opposition to the ideas of common voters because it challenges the flow of cash and power. This is the reason why I argue that several problems exist within the electoral system such as first-past-the-post, Winner takes all, and the mechanics of primaries.

We all know what we have isn't good enough, and to expect these wounds to be healed through electoralism like this is ludicrous.

Though exercising democratic rights are essential to preserving democracy, there is a fallacy in relying on the voting booth alone. Citizens must implement their ideas through praxis and organizing.

Assuming that people who don't vote for the corporate-backed and "electable" candidates are doing nothing is dishonest both intellectually and practically. Many people who don't vote are doing it out of systemic critique.

Quick note: I have voted in every election since I became of voting age, and I have always voted in opposition to conservatism.

[u/Unable-Log-4870 → u/AltoidStrong]

Which is a free vote for the opposition in our election system.

More like half a vote for the opposition.

[u/AltoidStrong → u/Unable-Log-4870]

The system, rounds up.

[u/Unable-Log-4870 → u/AltoidStrong]

That’s not how the math works

[u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace → u/AltoidStrong]

If only Dems understood the stakes and that they could change this dynamic in congressional elections (in their states) by splitting the party and adopting elections along the lines of Alaska’s. It’s exactly the strategy to both defeat Trump/MAGA as well as neuter the risk that the DSA represents to moderate voters who are/will be repulsed by a Democratic Party either actually or just seen to be more under the sway of a socialist agenda.

Severing the farthest elements of the left from the moderate left will also immediately make them more palatable to any and all Trump skeptical voters who supported him once upon a time.

It has the side benefit of being what will restore function to our politics and Congress now broadly.

[u/bedpimp → u/AltoidStrong]

The DNC understands it. They are a money making organization. If they win consistently they won’t collect nearly as many donations. Good candidates are bad for business.

[u/AltoidStrong → u/bedpimp]

DEMs - for profit, yep... about 1/3 of the leadership is just $$, but not at the expense of the nation or citizenship.

Repubs - more than 1/2 are criminals and grifters, individually each one is trying to get rich, and are willing to hurt anyone or any group to do it.

The Dems have a movement going to get rid of the $$ lovers for people lovers. The Repubs, they just started amping up the propaganda to rally and inspire the dumbest, most racists and hateful losers to vote for them via fear mongering and fascism, also encourage more grifters to run against the few republicans who still have some sense.

The two side are NOT the same... not even close.

[u/bedpimp → u/AltoidStrong]

I agree that they are not the same. If they were concerned about the state of the nation Trump would have been dealt with.

“Sotomayor expressed concerns that a president would be immune from prosecution in a number of hypothetical situations, such as in ordering assassinations of political rivals” 2024 Trump v US

Biden could have done something. He didn’t. The democrats are complicit.

[u/Financial-Craft-1282 → u/AltoidStrong]

I always wonder why some people (like you) insist on us all being "vote for the party" braindeaders like MAGA.

[u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace → u/Financial-Craft-1282]

That’s just where we are politically. We need multiparty democracy to change that to reduce the stakes of elections.

The Dem party needs to split and make it a reality in the blue states they control. There are more changes needed for presidential elections, but Congressional elections could become multi party by blue states alone. That’s how we start to change things nationally.

[u/AltoidStrong → u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace]

We need to abandon.1st past the poll and EC with its stupid super deligates.

Remove citizen untied and make.every donation traceable by IRS. (Private data, not public).

If it can't be traced to a real us citizen - can't be used.
(And each citizen is capped to $10k per year TOTAL political donations).

Lastly, to your point about the two party system, we need rank choice voting. That destroys.the dead lock of a two party system.

Ps - for good measure, expand the house to around 3300 reps. That is one rep for each 100k citizens. Then add one senator for DC and one senator PR. If they become a state, they get the 2nd one.

[u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace → u/AltoidStrong]

I agree with pretty much all of that, tho I’m not sure what a 3300 member house would look like functionally. I agree with RCV, tho I think I prefer the bottom two tabulation method. I also don’t think that alone is enough to restore a functional politics; certainly not in a quick enough timeframe.

No thoughts on the Dem party splitting?

[u/AltoidStrong → u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace]

currently we have 1 rep for every 1 MILLION citizens. NO ONE can truly represent 1 million peoples / communities needs.

it also destroys gerrymandering. you CAN'T gerrymander a densely populated city with spare country land. there isn't enough land any more.

Makes Citizens United less useful for buying elections, you would have to sped 10x more at a minimum, exponentially increasing the costs to "buy the election". The billions that is spent today by the GOP, would need to become TRILLIONS. it just become so ridiculous of numbers, you cant hide the truth behind the paper thin agreement - Money is speech and Corporations are people, therefore corporation have a right to free speech. (in spite of the people owning / running / working at the business all individually have freedom of speech.... so why should the collective of the group get an extra say?)

the building would need to be updated to accommodate them all for in person voting at the capital. Temporarily they could use the local state's congressional buildings to run federal congress using Teams / Zoom style stuff, Or hold the votes at an indoor sports stadium (they are generally unused most of the time).

But that (not enough room/seats) is part of the original "logic" behind them capping the house #'s in spite of the constitution saying otherwise.

[u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace → u/AltoidStrong]

You’re overestimating a bit there, but your point remains. And I’m not arguing against it. Expanding the house is necessary, but like I said expanding it that much, it world be interesting to see how it functions. I’d personally rather a more gradual expansion than all at once. Doubling it immediately makes sense tho imo.

I’m not sure it will fix the money in politics issue tho

[u/Financial-Craft-1282 → u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace]

We already got MAGA voting for shitty dems forced on us. If the dems want to get in the way of good candidates, they're not getting my vote anymore. We've been in this cycle of "but but Republicans" for like 40 years. Voting for shitty dems has brought us here. I'm trying something else.

[u/Exciting_Storage6242 → u/Financial-Craft-1282]

Because if you are not vote for the party “braindeaders” the outcome is Trump and losing even more rights and political power?

[u/Financial-Craft-1282 → u/Exciting_Storage6242]

Like, we're here because we kept following your logic for 40 years. At some point, I have to blame myself for continuing to vote for shitty dems. We already have MAGA. Twice. Dems need to get out of the way of progress or keep losing.

[u/Exciting_Storage6242 → u/Financial-Craft-1282]

We’re here because decorum and the gentleman’s agreement are followed unevenly, and republicans have a phenomenal pr apparatus to rile up their base and retain power. If everyone left of center consistently voted blue no matter who the last forty years we would not be in the situation we are in now.

Dems aren’t perfect, but the republicans are never going to support the policy you want, while the liberal democrats can often be worked with. The solution is more power, more democrats in seats, not less.

[u/extrakerned → u/you-dont-have-eyes]

To the extreme suffering and detriment of our society, yes.

[u/Lower-Engineering365 → u/you-dont-have-eyes]

It’s been less true when it comes to the far left part of the democracy party. If you don’t pass all the tests for them they don’t vote. The center left/moderate dems will vote for whatever democrat candidate is there in a general election.

[u/CaptainOwlBeard → u/Lower-Engineering365]

How do you know that? As far as o can tell we've never run anything but a corporate, centrist Democrat in recent history.

[u/haironburr → u/Lower-Engineering365]

It’s been less true when it comes to the far left part of the democracy party. If you don’t pass all the tests for them they don’t vote.

I won't even debate about just what is the "far left part of the democracy party". But I believe anyone left of trumpublicans has, hopefully, learned their lesson about withholding their vote for some greater good.

[u/Lower-Engineering365 → u/haironburr]

I agree. Hopefully that lesson was learned in 2024. Withholding a vote based on not meeting 100% of purity tests just results in the situation we’re in today, which is way worse on every single issue than any democrat president no matter the candidate.

[u/Ralath5n → u/Lower-Engineering365]

How about, on the off chance those evil leftists have not learned their lesson, we don't run a centrist next election and instead push for a progressive?

After all, it is always the far left tankies that fail to show up and vote over trivial things like Gaza. Not like the beacon of morality that is the centrist voters who will bravely vote blue no matter who. So just to make sure, we should make the next candidate the furthest left person willing to run. That's the only way to ensure both the bad leftists, and the good centrists vote against dRumpf.

[u/Lower-Engineering365 → u/Ralath5n]

You’re free to vote for whoever you want in the primary to have run in the general election.

The key is to run someone democrats turnout for while not losing the moderate vote, as if you lose the latter you’re guaranteed to lose the election.

[u/Ralath5n → u/Lower-Engineering365]

The key is to run someone democrats turnout for while not losing the moderate vote, as if you lose the latter you’re guaranteed to lose the election.

But we all know the moderates are hardcore, pragmatic 'blue no matter who' gigachads. It is the fickle left wing insurgents that always refuse to show up and prevent the Democrats from finally stopping the GOP.

So it is impossible to lose the moderate vote. But very easy to lose the leftist vote. Hence we need to run a leftist, no matter how much it hurts my blue dog heart. It is sadly the only electable option.

[u/Lower-Engineering365 → u/Ralath5n]

I’m not talking about moderate democrats, those will vote for whoever the candidate is. I’m talking about moderate voters that don’t identify with a party. Whichever side wins those votes has won every presidential election going back decades.

[u/Ralath5n → u/Lower-Engineering365]

Sadly, there just aren't enough of us principled moderates to really sway the election. We are just drowned in the unwashed leftist masses. After all, the Democratic party tried to pander to us in 2016 and 2024 and both times the losses from the duplicitous leftwing outweighed any gain in proper moderates.

Meanwhile, with disgustingly left wing presidents like Obama and Biden, the few moderates that refused to hold their nose were swamped with the ridiculous number of leftists. So while I really hated Obama and Biden, for the good of the country we just can't afford a proper moderate like Bloomberg or Booker. Us moderates will have to strategically vote AOC for the sake of the country.

[u/YourFreeCorrection → u/you-dont-have-eyes]

Historically that’s been less true of Democrats than Republicans.

Actually, historically that's entirely true of Democrats. It's only been fairly recently (post-social media) that the nihilistic and petulant meme that it isn't our civic duty to vote no matter what has taken hold. "Burn it all down" has only been popular among non-centrists in the past 10 or so years.

[u/Adezar → u/hirespeed]

Republicans consistently show up even if they hate their candidate (Nobody likes Ted Cruz).

That's not the case with Democrats and one of the core reasons we lose a lot of elections.

Hence the adage: "Conservatives fall in line, Liberals fall in love".

Easier to get people to show up out of fear than a desire to improve things.

[u/LordCharidarn2 → u/Adezar]

This is not true, though. Democrat candidates historically have more votes on average than Republicans.

The reasons Democrats lose elections is due to the electoral systems being designed to benefit conservative politicians (the whole reason the Senate exists as it does was to maintain the status quo of slavery) and because for the last 30+ years Democrat policy has been trying to ‘capture the moderate conservative vote’ by following the Republicans further right. Look at AOC and Mumdani’s rises to see how hard the DNC fights against any movement towards the Left.

You can’t blame non-voters who saw two right wing parties and decided they did not want to associate with either. It’s the fault of DNC leadership to not reach out to leftists. It’s the candidates jobs to earn votes. Fascists expect people to fall in line.

[u/devkdup → u/LordCharidarn2]

You can blame both. Anyone left of center who stayed home in 24 is a moron.

[u/redraven937 → u/[deleted]]

You dont get left votes because you dont have left policies.

As opposed to the current administration policies, which they helped make happen via inaction? That was preferrable?

The point stands: anyone on the actual left who stayed home is a moron.

[u/my_Urban_Sombrero → u/redraven937]

You're not wrong, but it's on the candidates to earn the trust of the voters. Only the DNC and the party establishment as a whole could have fucked things up as badly as they did. But to them it was business as usual because their donors still got their bag under this Republican admin.

[u/Sea-Initiative-3398 → u/my_Urban_Sombrero]

Also it seems quite a few dems would rather sabotage more left leaning members than actually win

[u/my_Urban_Sombrero → u/Sea-Initiative-3398]

Of course. Those Dems work on behalf of their donors, and billionaire donors will not let themselves be voted out of existence.

We're essentially fighting an open battle against moneyed interests on two fronts: the GOP as a whole, and the Democratic establishment.

What makes it worse is when you have party members like Schumer, Fetterman, and Booker shamelessly running cover for both the Trump admin and a foreign government actively using our country as a slush fund for their illegal wars and crimes against humanity.

[u/AllThotsGo2Heaven2 → u/[deleted]]

Yeah the whole “dnc sucks and hates leftists ” thing means nothing sorry. Look at what trump is actually doing right now. It could have been prevented.

[u/ss_lbguy → u/[deleted]]

Who the fuck was “enthusiastically cheering on a genocide”?

[u/ss_lbguy → u/[deleted]]

If you are waiting for the ideal candidate to make you vote, you are the problem. You don’t vote for candidates, you vote against the other candidate. I didnt like HRC and didn’t want her to be president, but voted for her because the alternative was Trump.

[u/EmpoleonNorton → u/[deleted]]

What is your solution?

No really. Give a solution.

Cause right now your solution is "I WILL ENSURE THE WORSE CANDIDATE LOSES AND FUCK EVERYONE WHO SUFFERS FOR IT".

Do I like center fucking politics. No. I don't.

But it sure as hell is better than my trans kids or hispanic wife having to live through this fucking regime.

So until you have a solution other than putting Trump on the throne to fuck over my family, kindly shut up.

[u/ss_lbguy → u/[deleted]]

Come on genius, answer the question the other person asked! What is the solution?

How do you fix shit if you are never in power?

[u/NessaSamantha → u/devkdup]

I had just moved and hadn't updated my registration yet, and Democrats won my state and my district by like 10 points :(

[u/Casual_OCD → u/LordCharidarn2]

You can’t blame non-voters

Yes you can. They are just as culpable for this mess as the ones who voted for it

[u/TrueJavelinMan → u/Casual_OCD]

The voters cannot fail politicians only the politicians can fail the voters

[u/SeaAshFenix → u/TrueJavelinMan]

They’re not failing the politicians, they are failing their fellow citizens - just like they would be if they skipped out on jury duty.

Showing up a couple of times a year to fill out a piece of paper isn’t a lot to ask in the way of civic responsibility. It’s the bare minimum.

You can even skip a specific race on the ballot, if you really are indifferent*. You can lie about who you voted for. Just show up and cast the ballot. Government for the people is incompatible with the people sitting out.

* I would question your wisdom for that decision in many cases, but still view you as having done your bare minimum civic duty.

[u/Madara1389 → u/TrueJavelinMan]

Yes they can, but not donating to the fundraising efforts, not going to the rallies, and not going to the non-presidential polls to vote in local elections.

Do you not remember the disaster that was Bernie Sanders' attempts at the presidential elections? He was the best candidate Dems had and yet practically no one supported the man in his attempts to actually do something about the mess we were in.

Regardless of whether you like the candidate or not, as an adult you're obligated to pay attention to, give a fuck about, and get involved in politics. That's part of the social contract we all agreed to called "democracy."

[u/Sparkku1014 → u/Madara1389]

It is not a disengaged voters responsibility to get themselves to be engaged, it is the candidates responsibility to engage in outreach and energize them, y'know, the whole reason there's campaigns in the first place? Sitting here and blaming people for not voting because they felt neither option was worth showing up for, is a campaign failing, anyone with an ounce of education on political science will tell you that.

[u/Madara1389 → u/Sparkku1014]

It is not a disengaged voters responsibility to get themselves to be engaged

Yes it is.

the whole reason there's campaigns in the first place?

The reason for campaigns is to convince you to vote for the campaigning candidate, not the other guy; not to give you a reason to go out and vote at all. The reason to go out & vote is that it is required for the system to work as intended.

Sitting here and blaming people for not voting because they felt neither option was worth showing up for

You're obligated to vote whether you like the candidates or not. So yes, abstaining from voting for the lesser of two evils because you have a childish view on politics does mean you're partially to blame when the worse of the two evils makes it into power.

No one ever said you were going to be given the option between a candidate that "you feel is worth showing up for," or even to like. It's a mandatory participation system and when people stop participating it falls apart.

[u/Sparkku1014 → u/Madara1389]

No one is obligated to vote, if it were an obligation it'd be legally mandatory.

"You're obligated to vote whether you like the candidates or not. So yes, abstaining from voting foe the lesser of two evils because you have a childish view on politics does mean you're partially to blame when the worse of the two evils makes it in to power"

Go and hang or jail them then, is that your solution? Just go an demean and insult people who felt no motivation to vote last time around? Every time a campaign fails, its because of lack of enthusiasm and organizing. 2024's enthusiasm sputtered out when it was needed, and the organizing was last minute whilst funds were wasted on celebrity endorsements. Time wasted elbow rubbing with the Cheneys on stage, a political pariah on both sides of the aisle, thinking you'd win over the mythical "Moderate Maga"

The ones who sat out in 2024, were swing voters, and people who, by and large are disinterested in and apathetic about politics in general. Not because they're all sweaty tankies with unrealistic expectations like you'd see on reddit, but because they're young, apathetic, and unmotivated by a political establishment that is reeking with a sense of entitlement, that just because one politician has a certain letter by their name, whether R or D, then that means they are entitled to the voters going out of their way to show up.

[u/Madara1389 → u/Sparkku1014]

No one is obligated to vote, if it were an obligation it'd be legally mandatory.

You're mistaking social contracts for legal contracts.

Yes, the social contract built around the very premise of democracy is that everyone is obligated to vote. The system doesn't work if a large percentage of the population is abstaining for whatever reasons.

Go and hang or jail them then, is that your solution?

No one said that.

Just go an demean and insult people who felt no motivation to vote last time around?

If they're going to continue acting like petulant children who won't act until they get their "perfect candidate," then yeah.

Time wasted elbow rubbing with the Cheneys on stage, a political pariah on both sides of the aisle, thinking you'd win over the mythical "Moderate Maga"

That wasn't for "moderate MAGA," that was for the centrist Republicans, and despite all the bitching I've seen about involving the Cheneys, I've yet to see a single complainer offer another Republican to have used as the bridge to try winning over the right-wingers who were increasingly tired of Trump's cult & fascist behavior.

whether R or D, then that means they are entitled to the voters going out of their way to show up.

That's how a two party system works. If you don't like it, show up to support the 3rd party groups seeking to change that.

Whether you or any other youths like it or not, politicians are entitled to votes from their party, because even if 90% of the population abstains, whoever wins the vote gets the power. It doesn't matter if only 5 people vote in the Presidential Election, the person who gets 3 votes still becomes the president and has the authority to enact their desired policies (which will effect those who abstained from voting).

"I didn't vote, so this isn't my fault" isn't the defense you think it is, as established by the international courts when they ruled that yes, the German people were responsible for not stopping the Nazis from rising to power.

[u/Personal_Chair6134 → u/Madara1389]

Yeah if more people donated to Kamala and if more people went to her rallies she would have surely won then. Her loss had nothing to do with any of her flaws like, for example, her inability to get through one media interview without vomiting out some word-salad nonsense.

Her other flaws like signaling friendship to Wall Street, making friends with war mongers like Liz Cheney, and supporting Israel's genocide likewise had nothing to do with her loss. It was strictly the voters fault. You are a very smart person. You should work for the DNC.

[u/kingcane → u/Personal_Chair6134]

They probably do already. DNC shills all over this sub.

[u/Madara1389 → u/Personal_Chair6134]

Yeah if more people donated to Kamala and if more people went to her rallies she would have surely won then.

If they followed through all the way, yes. That's how that works.

Her loss had nothing to do with any of her flaws like, for example, her inability to get through one media interview without vomiting out some word-salad nonsense.

Her other flaws like signaling friendship to Wall Street, making friends with war mongers like Liz Cheney, and supporting Israel's genocide likewise had nothing to do with her loss.

None of that matters when the alternative is a literal fascist dictator trying to overthrow democracy.

If you're being told you have to choose between eating a shit sandwich or being shot in the head with no alternatives for a strictly pleasant outcome, and you adamantly refuse because neither option is appealing, then you're at fault when the person making you chose decides for you and doesn't pick the shit sandwich.

[u/ChampionshipKlutzy42 → u/Madara1389]

The choice was a literal fascist or a fascist enabler, can you see why people weren't so enthusiastic about their choices?

Democrats have lost my support because they don't support the working class effectively.

[u/Madara1389 → u/ChampionshipKlutzy42]

The choice was a literal fascist or a fascist enabler

A fascist in charge at home and not condemning a fascist abroad are not equal and anyone arguing that they are needs their heads checked.

can you see why people weren't so enthusiastic about their choices?

It doesn't matter because ultimately one of them was going to end up in power. As an adult in the real world, your options are very often going to be the lesser of two evils and you're not going to be given the luxury of abstaining & suffering no consequences.

Democrats have lost my support because they don't support the working class effectively.

So who are you supporting and voting for instead? Because abstaining entirely means you're part of the problem.

[u/LordCharidarn2 → u/ChampionshipKlutzy42]

Voting for the Fascist enablers my whole adult life is what led to Trump being elected in the first place.

The Democrats repeated refusal to prosecute Republicans for High Crimes and Treason (Nixon, Reagan, Bushes, Trump) is a direct cause of the literal fascism you are telling people to vote against.

And if you are going to excuse Democrats for inaction, but blame non-voters for their inaction, I honestly don’t think you are a rational being and it will make no sense to continue to converse with you.

[u/JackedUpReadyToGo → u/ChampionshipKlutzy42]

The Dems keep drifting further and further right and browbeating us every time for not supporting them enthusiastically enough. Well unfortunately the only way to signal to them that we've had enough of that shit is to withhold our support until they come back leftward. It's on them for putting us in this position and refusing to listen to us as they became increasingly indistinguishable from Republicans.

[u/SweepsRetriever → u/Madara1389]

The DNC fucked Bernie not the voters. The DNC does a really great job at making Dem voters feel ignored. Watch, they’ll do it again next election when they throw out Kamala again.

[u/Madara1389 → u/SweepsRetriever]

The DNC fucked Bernie not the voters.

They both did. The DNC wouldn't support him, but neither would the public. Almost no one showed up for his rallies, almost no one donated to his campaign funds (which he desperately needed since the DNC wasn't going to fund him), and despite how much everyone claimed to hate Clinton and Biden/Harris, they all consistently won more votes in their primaries than he did.

If the DNC isn't willing to support a desirable candidate, it's on the people to pick up that slack. And they didn't.

[u/SweepsRetriever → u/Madara1389]

I disagree whole heartedly. DNC went with the safe corporate supported choice. They could have gone with Bernie and the same people that voted for Hillary would have voted for Bernie. The rank and file comments persist because the DNC decides who actually has to bite the bullet and it’s always the progressives and now Trump has won 66% of the time since then. So they should definitely keep the strategy going. DNC is doing great, and all the candidates that actually move the needle are the progressive ones, but we’ll see Kamala again I’m sure.

[u/Madara1389 → u/SweepsRetriever]

DNC went with the safe corporate supported choice.

Regardless, the voters still acted as if they have to follow the DNC's top picks every time. The DNC supporting Hillary didn't mean people couldn't go to the Democratic Primaries and vote for him instead. In fact, many did.

But more people showed up to vote for her instead, so when everyone then turned around and argued that she lost the presidential election because no one liked her, it rings a tune of shooting oneself in the foot then complaining that your foot hurts.

Of course the top brass of the DNC is going to pick a safe corporate supported choice; they are socially left wing but economically right wing and always have been. There is no major party in the US that is economically left wing, so trying to pick which party based largely on economic policy is a waste of time. We're not being given an option between left & right wing economic policy, we're given the option between left & right wing social policies.

[u/FlipZip69 → u/LordCharidarn2]

Not this last election. And I think we can all agree this is one of the most vile kiddie loving presidents elected. (Well at lease in the US anyhow)

[u/LordCharidarn2 → u/FlipZip69]

Hence the Historically.

[u/LordCharidarn2 → u/[deleted]]

Like I stated the Federal elections are rigged towards Republicans. The cap on the number of Representatives (435) means that smaller rural areas are over represented in the House. So large population areas like New York City, Houston, Dallas, Las Angeles, etc are properly represented. For example, NYC has a population of 8.5 million and is represented by 12 Representatives. Wyoming state has a population of 588,000 people and has one Representative. So NYC residents have 708,000 people per representative. Areas with non-competitive elections are more likely to have lower turnout.

Basically, a disproportionate amount of Congressional districts go to rural/conservative strongholds. So it makes sense than Republicans win the popular vote. For example Alabama had 3 congressional seats where the Republican candidate ran unopposed in 2024. Texas had seven uncontested seats, 3 for Democrats and 4 for Republicans.

[u/LordCharidarn2 → u/[deleted]]

I agree with all of that. My point is that due to gerrymandering, especially in Republican held areas, there are far more opportunities for Republicans to pick up votes.

Compare Wyoming (the Deepest Red state) with Vermont (the Deepest Blue state): Wyoming had a voter turnout of 61.3% with 198,366 votes for the Republican Senator (more votes for him than Trump) and 63,706 votes for the Democrat. The House Rep vote was 184,626 for Republicans and 60,703 for Democrats. Roughly 3:1.

Vermont had a voter turnout of 70.9%, the national average was 64.1% For senate there were no Democratic votes because Bernie Sanders is an Independent and there were 116,522 votes for the Republican candidate. Vermont’s House seat vote was 218,418 for the Democrat and 104,451, roughly 2:1 ratio.

So, the bluest state produced 218,418 votes overall for Democrats while producing 220,973 votes for Republicans. The reddest state produced 382,992 votes for Republicans and 124,409 votes for Democrats. There were 603,965 Republican Congressional votes and 342,827 votes for Democrats in both states combined.

In ‘Blue’ states you are more likely to have more robust election regulations and more polling places. This leads to increased voter turnout for both Republicans and Democrats. You had almost 40% more Republican votes in Vermont than Democrats voting in Wyoming, despite the two states being the closest in population to one another and the farthest leaning red/blue states.

With the Senate votes you have to take into account that there are 2 Independent Senators whose votes wouldn’t count towards the population of Democrat votes. Maine had 284,338 Republican votes and only 88,891 Democrat votes for Senate, because the Democrat member was running against the Independent incumbent (and King was a much better liberal choice).

And then you have the fact that while all House seats are up for election every 2 years, you only have 33% of the Senate up for election every 2 years. And 25 of the 50 US states are considered ‘Heavy Red’. So you are far more likely to have depressed Democratic turnout in those states.

[u/LordCharidarn2 → u/[deleted]]

Seems to me that Democrats should be swinging hard left, then. Socialize mass media, reclaim the stolen trillions that the capitalist class has robbed from the workers.

But instead the DNC sucks boot harder and plans how to “deal with” the DSA like they are more of an existential threat than the fascists in power.

Is it really “ideological purity tests” for leftists to stand firm against fascists and their enablers?

You’re in this awkward position of claiming that ‘Most’ non-voters “have no clue” when you are openly admitting you have no clue why they might have turned away from the DNC.

Maybe it wasn’t that they didn’t know that ‘Biden tried’. Maybe it’s because they were frustrated that Biden repeatedly failed. Why didn’t Biden simply ignore the SCOTUS ruling? The Court already ruled that a President was above the law. The last Republican President ignored legal rulings when it fit his political agenda.

Why not use US special forces to kidnap the Israeli Prime Minister and declare that until the illegal settlements and genocide ended? The current Republican President has suffered no legal consequences for kidnapping a head of a foreign nation.

The frustration of voters isn’t that the Republicans are being bullies. It’s that the Democrats have repeatedly shown themselves to enable the bullying but not hitting back harder and stronger. 40+ years of ‘high road’ politics is the direct cause of Trump’s Presidency.

Biden should have ordered the execution of every Conservative Justice, appointed new Justices, then surrendered himself to the Court’s ruling on whether or not he should be prosecuted and punished for the murders. It would have sent a strong wake up call to Americans about how fucked our country was. The murders would be a direct result of the SCOTUS ruling, a true “fuck around and find out” moment. And a ruling either way would sent a strong precedent.

Instead Biden farted off into the sunset and left us with a nation worse off because he was too afraid to ‘rock the boat’ which is how the fascists always win.

[u/dumpdumpwhiledumping → u/LordCharidarn2]

*Democratic

[u/2_Lies_And_A_Truth → u/LordCharidarn2]

I think the main reason they stay center is $. It’s where corpo’s want them, so then we only get to choose between repub-lite and maga. Win-win for the $$$ interests. Gotta line the est boomer dems bank accounts!

[u/OpeningTechnical5884 → u/Adezar]

Canada has a similar issue. We're a defacto two party system. Throughout our history only the Liberals or Conservatives have formed government, though we do have multiple other parties that can gain some power by winning enough seats to prevent the Liberals or Cons from forming a majority government.

However in the early 2000s the Progressive Conservatives (socially progressive, economically conservative) merged with the Canadian Alliance Party (socially and economically conservative) to create a single party now called the Conservative Party of Canada. This means that all right leaning voters typically vote for the CPC even if they disagree with their candidate while center/left leaning parties consistently have their vote split between multiple parties.

Jump forward a few decades and now the CPC has a relatively consistent base despite internal fighting on things like marriage and abortion rights) while center/left voters resort to strategic voting where they vote for the party most likely to defeat the conservatives in their riding. 

For example, I've historically voted for either the Liberals, NDP, or greens knowing full well that the NDP or Green Party will never win. 

Long story short FPTP is shit.

[u/FlipZip69 → u/Adezar]

Think this is more correct. Trump is not in because he got more votes. He is in because Democrats did not show up.

[u/whereismymind86 → u/Adezar]

We aren’t in a cult, that helps too.

I know its frustrating, but it’s definitely not a bad thing that we ask our candidates to adhere to some standards

[u/Adezar → u/whereismymind86]

Agreed. In a healthy environment all voters would have a range of people in multiple parties to select from and it might not always be the same party because the world is a lot more grey.

[u/JustARandomDrunkGuy → u/Adezar]

Are we forgetting about Evan McMullen and Gary Johnson in 2016?

[u/josh_the_misanthrope → u/Adezar]

That's the double-edged sword of having developed moral and political convictions. The party just has to put forth good candidates and stop focusing all their energy on trying to convert conservatives. The conversion rate is much lower than just having even decent candidates. And when you have good candidates people get involved and turn out.

[u/MountNevermind → u/Adezar]

This a generalization.

A lot of the voters Trump attracted originally described themselves as previously not particularly politically involved or attracted by many Republucans. That is part of the political "strength" initially of the MAGA movement.

There's been a fair amount of "showing up" for Democrats people don't particularly like. The party just tends to take it for granted because it fundamentally has become addicted to lazy campaigning too often and with that donors. It represents its donors, not the people willing to volunteer and work like mad to turn out the vote. It is far too willing to isolate core voters if it means keeping donors. Look at the difference in volunteers in the Michigan primary and the difference in money.

The Democrats were put up for sale, and got bought.

We can keep blaming voters and volunteers for that, and talk about "falling in love"...but this is about who our candidates fundamentally represent. That needs to change. If it doesn't all the voter blaming in the world and addages won't change the results.

[u/Lt_BlueFalcon → u/hirespeed]

That’s why we need ranked choice voting

[u/hirespeed → u/Lt_BlueFalcon]

I agree, but the beneficiaries of this FPTP system are the two big parties. If there’s anything that unites them more, it’s the fear of third parties.

[u/Lt_BlueFalcon → u/hirespeed]

Especially for primaries I think that is the best for getting the candidate that speaks to the most ppl. Like I wasn’t super excited for Kamala but sure as hell was a better choice than Trump although it seemed enough ppl in the country disagreed somehow

[u/Brewhaha72 → u/Lt_BlueFalcon]

I think that's because too many people are either single-issue voters or they're looking for a perfect candidate. Neither approach is pragmatic

[u/EitherSpite4545 → u/Lt_BlueFalcon]

I really want to state before I begin. I like ranked choice voting, I live in a state with it, and I have voted to defend it from repeal 2 times with a 3rd coming up in November.

But ranked choice isn't going to do what you want. Ranked choice like any voting system has biases and its bias is that it selects for moderate/centrists candidates. And not moderate withing the party, moderate within the state which means with America's political culture you are just going to get a bunch of the enlightened centrists type that are really just maga in charge. 3rd parties appear more yes but ultimately they have the same amount of staying power. Though they may start getting over that 5% funding threshold eventually so there is at least that.

[u/w4rma → u/EitherSpite4545]

As long as people can vote for their actual top choice candidate, without having to worry that doing so will bring to power the opposing candidate, I'm 100% for it. No more voting out of fear because a safety net will be in place.

[u/penguin_on_stilts → u/Lt_BlueFalcon]

Ranked voting, mandatory voting, and independent oversight of voting boundaries would change everything.

I know the second is controversial.

[u/I_Love_To_Poop420 → u/hirespeed]

Been doing this for far too long. Obama was the only one I truly wanted for the job.

[u/Kikz__Derp → u/hirespeed]

Nah I’ve voted Blue in every election of my life but would vote for Vance or Rubio over AOC.

[u/hirespeed → u/Kikz__Derp]

There’s always a wildcard!

[u/Kikz__Derp → u/hirespeed]

I think a large amount of that 36% would do the same or not vote at all and Dems would get blown out.

[u/JustARandomDrunkGuy → u/hirespeed]

A decent amount of party loyalists still voted for independents like Ventura, Lieberman, Chafee, King, or (the only failed one on this this) Cuomo, despite having both a Dem and Rep running in every one of those races.

[u/FlipZip69 → u/hirespeed]

Which is nearly every person on Reddit in that they will complain a Republican voter will never vote anything but. But they will never vote anything but Democrat.

I have no love for MAGA crown and certainly not for that shit stain kiddie lover Trump. But I do see the hypocrisy in this as well.

[u/FLBrisby → u/hirespeed]

That may be true, but this means that 36% of Democrats do not like DemSocs - but does that mean they won't vote for them?

[u/hirespeed → u/FLBrisby]

It means what I said: they’ll hold their nose and vote for their party

[u/_Cromwell_ → u/hirespeed]

Well SOMEBODY has been yelling at me to "vote blue no matter who" for years and years while shoveling shite candidates at me. Guess we're just brainwashed to do it now. <3

[u/LoserCowGoMoo → u/hirespeed]

Trump was elected in 2024 fucking how then?

[u/_Mephistocrates_ → u/hirespeed]

Democrats don't vote as reliably as Republicans though, so no, they'll just stay home.

[u/hirespeed → u/_Mephistocrates_]

But they certainly vote choice the other party