612
Breaking the illusion of 2 party system (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world
101 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Strangely enough, I'm still not sure how you feel. I've upvoted you because I think this 'adds to the conversation' even if I eventually disagree with you.

Demonstrably not...

Your line was "... because Leftists didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008".

So you would or would not have preferred Clinton in the 2008 general election? Over what? I'm serious. I wasn't paying attention at that time to know how she compared to Obama. By the time I was really watching, she was leagues better than trump, but back in 2008, I was a simple straight-ticket blue voter -- doing my duty, punching my card every two years and feeling like I was helping.

(again my point is aimed at inform. Sell me on your point of view. I don't think we're enemies and there is a silent majority who agree on the end goal but maybe not the path.)

How is today's situation on the shoulders of people who didn't vote for Hillary in 2008's Primary?

I know people who have succumbed to not good enough, and let some terrible people win. This is perhaps more pronounced locally, if you start looking, where a handful of votes is the difference between a socialist or liberal winning over a conservative or fascist.

I think this is only happening because capital does what capital does, and it tries to own the narrative. Berating people because the self-appointed leadership failed them is totally not a thing this community is trying to do. right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    So you would or would not have preferred Clinton in the 2008 general election?

    Personally? I think it would have been a push. Possible for Hillary to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in '08 like she did in '16. But I think Dems still end up making all the same mistakes in '09/'10 and set themselves up for a GOP takeover of all those state and local offices two years later. These problems date back to the 1980s and the leadership has only doubled-down on them over the last forty years.

    Obama had a unique opportunity to reinvent the party in 2009 and... didn't. Hillary was a creature of the party and definitely wouldn't have done any better. And the need to blame people outside the party for the miserable performance of leadership inside the party means we get Trumpism a little sooner (maybe even War with Iran a bit sooner).

    I know people who have succumbed to not good enough, and let some terrible people win.

    The notion that the naysayers are to blame for the Democratic Party's lackluster performance is the reason the Democrats keep losing. They only ever know how to blame everyone else. Obama broke the trend in '08 (and kinda-sorta in '12) by rallying such a supermassive majority of support that the "Blame the Greens for our Failures!" caucus got drowned out by people applauding our first black president.

    But over the long term, when corporate Dems pick candidates, what we really end up seeing is indie voters getting seduced by liberal-sounding Republicans not green candidates. Trump running as an anti-war candidate, Kasich and Bush Jr and Arnold Schwartzenagger running as "compassionate conservatives", Chris Christie and Ron DeSantis running as "tough on corruption" prosecutors - they all play against the weaknesses of the Democratic Party.

    Blaming The Left because you scared off all the unaligned voters is great for rallying BlueMAGA Democrats, but miserable for actually winning elections.

    I think this is only happening because capital does what capital does

    Capital plays both sides expertly. It's very funny to see someone as dumb and racist as Elon Musk run circles around a guy supposedly as educated and savvy as Barack Obama, and yet that's exactly what happened in 2009. Same with Zuckerberg and Thiel and Bezos. They all suck Democrats into their orbit, milk them for every penny they're worth, and then toss them aside for the next GOP hotness. Hell, even Sam Bankrupt Fraud got the wool over Schumer and Gillibrand multiple times.

    The only thing more stunning that Dem leaders who get hoodwinked like this are Dem voters who keep reelecting them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    So I think we're aligned... or at least I'm coming to your side in my Liberal >> Left journey.

    A commenter above said you left off the /s and that it was sometimes hard to tell. I went in defending Left from someone who thought that Hillary would have been significantly different from/better than Obama.

    I'm assuming with "I think it would have been a push," that you were not actually blaming Left (those here, not colloquial US democratic voters in aggregate) for the current problems, but maybe I'm still missing something.

    I wrote up further discussion, but it took me too long to collect my thoughts and I think I missed my chance to have a reasonable window.

    I did want to still follow up and say thanks for having this conversation with me, and for going into detail.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent