top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 197 points 2 months ago (55 children)

My voting flow chart is socialists, then democrats, then nobody.

Imo, we can fight over what shade of blue after the pedos are out of office.

  • source
  • hideshow 55 child comments
  • [–] 82 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    This right here. And it goes for centrist dems too. If a progressive is the candidate on the ticket, vote for them. Don't let the pedophiles win this one

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (49 replies)
    [–] 67 points 2 months ago (18 children)

    If Democrats don't take at least one chamber of Congress in the fall, I genuinely worry they may never again. The little that's left of American democracy won't survive another 2 years of full MAGA control. Anyone urging you to not vote for the Democrat in your races or to not vote at all is either running a right-wing/foreign influence campaign or so clueless about the big picture as to be safely ignored.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • load more comments (18 replies)
    [–] 62 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    And if you don’t vote in primaries, you need to start. It’s the only chance any of us have a say-so on who ends up on the Dem ticket.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    This will not work by itself. The Dems have been cheating in the primaries for decades. Do it anyway! But also, we need to get into the bureaucracy.

    We can't stop at voting in the primaries. The reason we have never gotten anywhere is because we are not in the machine. We watch from the outside.

    If you personally can't do it, push someone you know to try. We have to be in the machine watching the boring procedural stuff, sitting and taking minutes, making and checking internal votes, leaking information when the status quo cheats, changing things from the roots.

    The magats took over the Republican party. It took 30 years, and they had big money helping, but we can do it faster and cheaper if there's enough of us!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 49 points 2 months ago
    [–] 42 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    It’s hard to buck the establishment. ~16,000 people were the difference in a state of 10 million.

    If every eligible voter participated it wouldn’t even be close. Always blows my mind seeing comments on voting doesn’t matter when I’m on average voting for 3-4 other citizens in primaries.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    On one hand, true. But some things to consider:

    • Only about 1.4 million votes were cast, ~13% of the state's registered voters. If you look at a map of the volume of El-Sayed's votes, this low turnout let a relatively small number of local hot spots swing the election with higher-than-normal turnout due to his focus on them
    • That moneyball strategy succeeding is a good sign regardless of the margin; the opposition spent millions of dollars in big market cities (notably Detroit) and on state wide campaigns and still failed to keep up. Spending from AIPAC and corporate interests was something like 11:1 vs his total campaign spend ($95 per non El-Sayed vote vs $9 for)
    • Michigan has open primaries, meaning any voter could ignore the red side of the ballot (mostly uncontested and landslides) to poison the opponents primary. I'm not sure if this is quantified anywhere, but it's definitely a factor considering republican strategists view the nascent progressive wing as a larger threat than establishment dems
  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 27 points 2 months ago (18 children)
    1. There is a material difference between the Democrats and Republicans that's worth observing. Dems are merely corrupt politicians: the Republicans are Xtian extremist white-nationalist fascists.
    2. It is vanishingly unlikely that a 3rd party candidate can win in 99% of the elections. Most successful independent politicians became independent after they were first elected, and win as incumbents.
    3. Not voting for the viable candidate running against the fascist GOP, because that candidate is not as $SOMETHING as you want them to be, is simply demonstrating privilege, that you are insulated enough from the effects of the fascist regime that you're not personally harmed by the fascists winning. Vote like defeating the fascists is the only objective.
  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • load more comments (18 replies)
    [–] 27 points 2 months ago (25 children)

    There better not be one fucking democrat that doesn't vote in the midterms and the presidential election in '28.

  • source
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (26 children)

    It totally depends on the candidate, their platform and who is financing their campaign. Just voting for someone because theyre a democrat gives us people like Kristen Sinema, Joe Manchin and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez who end up voting with the fascists.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Fetterman, Manchin, and Sinema, bad as they are and were, were still the better choice compared to their general election opponents.

    An occasional collaborator sucks,. but is less-bad than either an unrepentant facist or an aligned "moderate" like Collins.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 2 months ago

    I feel like people forget that the alternative to Fetterman was Dr Oz.

    Swapping Fetterman for Oz would have given the GOP majorities in both House and Senate, put Mitch McConnell back as Senate President, and generally been an objectively worse outcome.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    Exactly this. I don't disagree with wanting to cut the weakest members of the team to find someone better, but that's for the primaries.

    Looking at real numbers, Fetterman is better than Manchin or Sinema. Fetterman breaks with party lines around 25% of the time while Sinema was at 33% and Manchin was almost 40%. That makes him around twice as good as Manchin.

    Idealogically, he also seems to stack up more favorably than both Manchin and Sinema, and a few other well know congressfolk that never get brought up in these conversations. Fetterman, like Manchin and Sinema, just seems to draw more attention to himself when he does it.

    Do I dislike Fetterman and want him gone and replaced by someone better? Heck yeah! But the record shows he's about 75% better than having Dr Oz as my senator would have been. Ignoring the times he did do what he was sent to do is very misleading to people that don't take the time to look at actual data, which is going to be nearly everyone. Conor Lamb's ideology score doesn't look any better, so what we got is still about the best we had a chance to get.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (18 replies)
    [–] 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (15 children)

    Oh, we’ll vote for them, but the Democratic Party must cease to be undemocratic, and they must stop their ploy to act as a honeypot to capture and neutralize progressive policies and politicians. They must reckon with us, not the other way around. Armistice. That is the offer. After the midterms there will be deep canvassing in every district the shitlib Democrats thought were safe. Now they can go ask for more fucking money from their malefactors. They’ll need it.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • load more comments (15 replies)
    [–] 21 points 2 months ago (17 children)

    And this is consistent with how Bernie has voted over the years. If his vote doesn't matter on a bill that will move things towards his goals but not enough, he votes no. However, if his vote is needed, he'll vote yes because some progress is better than no progress.

    And it is always amazing how people will claim to like Bernie but really don't like it when this is pointed out.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 19 points 2 months ago

    And then continue to work to make the party more reflective of its members

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago* (46 children)

    Might as well pin this. Going to need this until November.

    Just your friendly reminder that online right-wing operatives have a strong inclination to sow defeatism and apathy and push people to vote third party when it's abundantly clear that there won't be a race anywhere in the country where the Democrat isn't better than the Republican in a binary choice election. Clearly, Bernie agrees.

  • source
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • load more comments (46 replies)
    [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    It'd be weird if he told people not to vote.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (35 children)

    even if moderates are victorious in the primaries

    Just tell the DNC to ratfuck the primaries again, the people will obediently vote for the people happy to fund ICE at home and genocide abroad. There's no way telling the dems they can do whatever they want without risking lower turnout can backfire.

  • source
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (34 children)

    History time.

    Frederick Douglas was an escaped slave who became one of the most influential speakers of his time. In 1860 he had a choice. He could support an Abolitionist candidate for President, or he could throw in with Lincoln. Abe had said that he supported the Union over abolition. Douglas figured it was better to win and have a seat at the table than to lose.

    edit -Alcohol Corn responded to this comment, then reedited his comments later.

    Kind of skews the actual conversation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • load more comments (15 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    We've been voting for the Democrats to vote progressive for years.

    Let's figure out an agreement and perhaps we're on board.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    It's such weird phrasing. Encourage progressive voters to back democrats? The progressive candidates run as democrats. We're trying to vote for democrats, and the bulk of voters have been clearly trying to get the entrenched democrats to get behind that and support them. But they keep not doing that.

    The voters aren't supposed to follow the will of the party establishment. They're supposed to follow the will of the voters. They have it all backwards and feel like they should get to vote whatever way they're paid to vote on issues and that we're the ones doing bad and causing Republicans to win if that causes us to lose trust in them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›