MonkRome

Nothing could be more egocentric than believing every opinion different from your own can just be reduced to egocentrism. Maybe it's time for a healthy dose of self awareness...

You're missing my point. I am much further left than the party on most issues. I too wish for the party to move left. It won't move left by left wing people disappearing, that behavior only serves to move the party right. The party needs 50% of the vote plus one, if you don't show up to vote, they will get it from the moderate right next cycle. Every time you fail to be part of the solution you make the problem much worse.

Alternatively, people can get engaged with the party now, while we have time to take over. The party is made up of it's members. If those members shift heavily left, so will the platform. You don't win the game by refusing to play, you win the game by becoming the team.

But that's the opposite of what is happening. Instead each time the party fails to gain enough power to enact left wing policy and instead is forced to concede to the middle they get punished and they have no choice but to move towards the votes.

We are repeatedly doing exactly what the right wing wants. Stay fractured and disorganized, and we all lose, forever.

100% of the USA relies on fossil fuels. Dems have always done both in the last 2 decades, focus on energy independence (which means meeting the present need) and on preparing for the future (clean energy alternatives). And they weren't trying to ban green tech, they were trying to stop spyware from entering the country from china. Yes Biden blew it on the wall.

The real sticking point is war.

It's the real sticking point now. As soon as the party shifts their policy stance there will be others, that's my point.

People on the left have no clue how policy is made, how party platforms change, how minds are changed. If you want a seat at the table you actually have to take it. That means showing up and joining, going to meetings, voting on policy platforms, holding your nose and voting for your team and then pressuring you side to do what you want. It means saying "hey, if you take a moral stand on this, I'll back you up in the next election."

But that's not the way of self righteousness and moral purity, the lefts smug moral purists would rather torch the world than work with people. They say "thank for taking a stand on this, but it will never be good enough, kindly go fuck yourself". The party doesn't move left, because the left is far far too self righteous to ever actually work with anyone that doesn't pass their purity test. People like that don't actually believe in democracy, in consensus building, it's their way or the highway.

I agree the party needs to move left, but people that actually want to govern on the left need to meet them there.

doubt it will work as well as you think

Whatever the Dems do, even if it move their platform to the furthest left in the known universe most moral puritans on the left will just lable them mainstream, or corpo shills and find a reason to stay home. Regardless of policy position or idea, the far left has always moved the goalposts between each election cycle just out of reach of the main stream.

When they refused to vote for Gore because of climate change the party moved to the left to meet those voters, and the left said fuck off. When they moved to left to get voters that refused Hillary because of corporate speaking gigs the party moved further left on corporate accountability, and the left said fuck off. When Biden moved left during his term to protect the environment, hold predatory schools and lending servicers accountable, attempted loan forgiveness, expanded overtime guarantees, etc etc etc. the left said fuck off to his predecessor. The people who claim the left will just show up if you give them x are big fat liars. Their perceived moral purity will always be more valuable to them than progress and action.

And I say this as someone that is further to the left than the party. I am also profoundly disappointed in the parties lack of moral courage. I just believe in practical progress and action, something most self righteous moral puritans absolutely don't believe in.

They can live anywhere, when the usa collapses, they all just leave to go fuck up somewhere else.

I'm not for millions of immigrants suffering just to teach conservatives a lesson.

The article implies that this is a reaction to specifically conservative men. So I think there is nuance there that the article is choosing not to define. But until women get autonomy over their reproductive health, having sex with any men, conservative or not, comes with increased risk. So it has a certain logic to it even if they are truly swearing off literally all men.

If I understand their outlook, first job is getting people who consistently vote for Dems to be reminded and motivated to go to the polls. 2nd is convincing consistent voters to vote for you (that includes Republicans and third party), a distant last is convincing non-voters or occasional voters. I think the problem with trying to get 3rd party voters to vote for Dems is that the type of person that votes 3rd party is very difficult to convince that you're an ally.

They could completely realign the party platform to fit with 3rd party and non voters biggest issues and most won't shift their vote for many reasons. Disgust for the 2 party system, distrust that the party will follow a more left wing agenda, conspiracy theories, the needs to be contrarian or protect their sense of moral purity, etc.

While I'm not sure I agree with the parties approach to disaffected voters. I do think the amount of investment needed to get those voters is possibly outweighed by the amount of voters you may lose in the process. And that sense of inherent risk is stopping the party from taking a chance. Maybe we get lucky and they no longer see an alternative, but I doubt it.

I think you're wrong about how the party sees non voters. When you don't vote, the party treats you like a non voter and moves their platform to the right to appeal to the voters. When you sit home in an election the party doesn't go "how do we get these votes of people that only vote when the stars align perfectly", they go, "how do we get these votes of people that always vote". Every far left person mad about the country moving right can blame themselves just as much as the party. People who consistently participate shape the future.

Source: I've worked for the Democratic party and have a pretty good idea how they interpret voter turnout data.

Naw, they were using that before all the anti trans nonsense. It's more about their inability to see women as human. They identify them more for their gender than being the same species as them. If they started calling them women that would humanize women too much...

I'll believe it when I see it, there is too much money to be made by selling division and overblown narratives.

Democratic party aside, Bernie couldn't get the votes. I actually think the news media has been a much much bigger problem with someone like Bernie getting power. They always try to paint someone like him as being radical, when anywhere else in the world he would be a normal person on the left.