• BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    If you go with a full progressive or overtly leftist campaign you will also lose.

    The last time Democrats tried, they won a super majority.

    centrist/independent

    Notice how you’ve just assumed based on nothing that independents are all “centrists” who don’t vote Democrats because they’re too progressive. Which is wrong.

    We apparently only vote for the PERFECT candidate

    People don’t want to vote for people who see “actively genocidal” as “not perfect”

    • Alteon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yeah mate…back in 1932. I’m sure nothing’s really changed since then. And if you think we’ve had a “progressive” candidate since then… I’d LOVE to hear this hot take.

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I was talking about Obama, who ran a progressive campaign.

        Also, if you believe that Democrats haven’t run a progressive campaign in 90 years, you have ZERO leg to stand on saying it would lose.

        • Alteon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          He was barely center-left. None of his actual policies were progressive. He had a more progressive tone in his campaign, but none of his actual campaign promises could be construed as “progressive”. The ACA built on private insurance, not Medicare for all; his military policy built a strong global military posture; hell…he even spoke plenty about “working across the aisle”.

          The only progressive thing about Obama was the fact that he was a black candidate. He was able to speak like a progressive, but still nab a massive amount of independent, and his policies reflected that.

          Edit to your edit: the last overtly “Progressive” candidate was George McGovern in '72, but he lost to Nixon in a landslide. You act as if merely having a “progressive” candidate is the secret sauce to winning the election. I’m desperately trying to tell you that it’s a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

          • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            He was barely center-left.

            He still ran faaaaaar to the left of any recent Democratic campaign, which still completely torpedoes your assertion that the current Democrats aren’t running right enough to win elections.

            He was able to speak like a progressive, but still nab a massive amount of independent, and his policies reflected that.

            Oh please, there is not some huge group of independents who voted for Obama because they saw him as a conservative centrist who then went on to not vote for Clinton, Biden, or Harris because they were too left wing. That isn’t a thing.

            the last overtly “Progressive” candidate was George McGovern in '72

            Oh so only 50 years then! Still means your claim that progressive candidates can’t win us totally baseless.

            You act as if merely having a “progressive” candidate is the secret sauce to winning the election.

            No, I am just rejecting your baseless assertion that progressive candidates can never win.

            I’m desperately trying to tell you that it’s a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

            Other around: you’re trying to argue that it’s as simple as “independents are in the middle of Democrats and Republicans” and I’m telling it’s a lot more complicated then that