this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
439 points (78.5% liked)

Political Memes

5339 readers
3192 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someguy3 62 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (5 children)

Abstaining or voting 3rd party to "make Dems listen" doesn't work. If anyone thinks they can play Mexican Standoff, you can't because the Dems have an out: the center voter. Every time they lose, they go to the center to find voters.

And remember they need all 3 of presidency, house of representatives, and senate to pass pretty much anything. If they don't have all 3 they will go to the center to find voters. Some people call this rachet effect, but really they're looking for voters. Want them to stop 'racheting'? Then give them consistent and overwhelming victories.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I live in a red state, and the Democratic Party cannot even get enough warm bodies to ruin for every office here. The Libertarians do better with their candidates than the Democrats.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

The obviously the tactical strategy is to vote libertarian

[–] [email protected] 8 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

So vote for them regardless and then they will listen?

[–] someguy3 12 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Dems need all 3 (presidency, house of reps, Senate) to do pretty much anything. They've had that for [drumroll please] 4 out of the last 24 years. Or 6 of the last 32 years. Or 6 of the last 44 fucking years.

[–] MegaUltraChicken 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

They've had that for [drumroll please] 4 out of the last 24 years

It was significantly shorter than that when you consider Senate control to be 60, which is what's needed to bypass the fillibuster.

[–] someguy3 13 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Supermajority was 4 months, out of the last 44 years. But whenever I mention that people think I'm fixated on that for some reason.

*Oh downvoted already. Some people really don't like hearing this.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You shouldn’t cry about fake internet points

[–] someguy3 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I'm not crying, I'm laughing how certain people downvote because they don't like hearing facts.

[–] RustyEarthfire 10 points 14 hours ago

This is an incorrect framing of the situation. You aren't being asked for a Yes/No vote on Democrats. You are being asked if you prefer Democrats or Republicans. Or for this election, if you prefer Democracy or Fascism. If you vote "no preference", that does not communicate "I prefer the Democrats, but want them to move further left", either logically or politically.

There are lots of ways to communicate desired policy changes: letter-writing, primaries (including campaigning/funding for candidates), protests, marches, press, social-media, etc. Voting against your interest is not one of them.

[–] Stovetop 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

The more elections the far right loses, the more the overton window shifts to the left.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

Democrats move further right to get votes from the center but when they win it'll go left trust me bro

[–] someguy3 7 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

They go to the center when they lose. If they don't lose, they don't need to go to the center to find voters. You can see my other comment, they've only had all 3 houses for 4 out of the last 24 years.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 12 hours ago

This, but unironically.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

I've thought about that recently.

In Germany, the 2 historically biggest parties were SPD (used to be liberal-democrat) and CDU (conservative) and they often were the ones tugging it out while the smaller parties were filling in as coalition partners for one or the other.

Over time, the SPD splintered into several semi-big offshoot parties (Linke, for example) while the CDU stayed as a whole. As a result, CDU is now commonly a favorite for getting most votes in an election.

Is that consistent with politics across the globe? And if, why do liberal or center parties tend to split up more than conservatives?

[–] PrimeMinisterKeyes 5 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Counterexample: The European Parliament. IMHO, it looks like 4 right-wing groups, 2 left-wing ones and 2 centrist ones. While the exact positioning could be argued over, the right wing is quite certainly more fragmented than the left is.

[–] kitnaht 31 points 16 hours ago

Because conservatives gravitate towards authority, and progressives are looking to break the status quo.

So conservatives value order, authority, and it causes them to fall in line.

Progressives are looking to break that order, believing that things can be better than they are right now. That causes them to infight more often.

[–] someguy3 10 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I commonly hear the left is a loose coalition of factions (which can split apart), while the right fall in line. I think there are fewer factions on the right, or the factions are not as far apart, so coming together is easier. They also unite in absolute hatred of the left, so will fall in line to slay that beast.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 7 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

And remember they need all 3 of presidency, house of representatives, and senate to pass pretty much anything

The odds of Democrats keeping the Senate seem dismal. So it sounds like we're giving the party license to do nothing for another two years

[–] someguy3 4 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I like how you twist that to "party license". If the ~~people~~ voters vote that way, that is the will of the ~~people~~ voters. Don't like it? Vote. For Dems. (Though the GOP bear some responsibility being obstructionist pos.)

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 20 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

If the ~~people~~ voters vote that way, that is the will of the ~~people~~ voters.

Sorry 50M Californians, but 40k West Virginians decided to go a different way. Guess this means no civil rights for another two years.

[–] someguy3 9 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

This is aimed at those people that think not voting or voting 3rd party is effective to "make Dems listen". It is not. Voters have a say.

[–] Soup 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

So give up? Yea, it fucking sucks and is unfair as hell but voting is too easy to claim a lack motivation. It’s not a sustained effort, it’s something happens incredibly rarely and you can definitely handle. You can even mail that shit in in most places.

If you vote then it will be hard for the democrats to win and start shifting your countries policies to leftward(even if it’s an inch at a time). If you don’t vote then it will be impossible to do it.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

So give up?

If your full effort begins and ends with election season, you've already given up.

[–] Soup -4 points 10 hours ago

Who said that? Oh right, nobody. Fuck, bro, get it together.

[–] LotrOrc -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

And in their trips to the centre they keep seeming to forget that they keep shifting further and further right

Centrists are a curse here

[–] someguy3 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

They. Are. Looking. For. Voters.

If the ~~people~~ voters want more right, then that's the will of the ~~people~~ voters. Thus the message: If you, as a leftist, want them to go left then you have to vote for Dems.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

See you have this backwards, they are supposed to change and then they are rewarded with votes.

If you vote them in before they change, they have no reason to change.

[–] someguy3 -1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

We can go through the whole history if you want. Every time the Dems go left, they lose. Every single time. So they go to the center to find voters. Then certain people whine "Why are they going center!!! We won't vote for them!!! Rachet!!" That's when I say playing Mexican Standoff won't work. Because they have an out and you don't. If you want them to stop going center, they have to win first. Because, again, when they lose they go to the center to find voters.