Ah yes, the real problem is the person calling you out on your BS. What an honest and productive conversation I’m missing out on!

lol Funny how no one else seems to be voting anywhere else in this thread anymore, except minutes after your comment. It’s embarrassing that you’re doubling down. Sociopathic behavior.

It is pointless arguing with someone so devoted to winning an internet debate. Can’t reason with that.

You got 3 upvotes within minutes after you posted on a 2 day old post? And I got 3 downvotes at the same time? You’re pathetic.

You’re changing the subject. My claim was about 2020, not 2024. This year, yes, Biden’s candidacy is inevitable. It is almost unheard of to challenge an incumbent president, and Democrats want to avoid an intra-party fight. When Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980, it was a disaster that damaged the party for a long time.

I agree with you that Biden is a weak candidate and there are better candidates. But you made the extreme claim that elections don’t matter, that we have no choice, that shadowy elites choose all the candidates, and other silly conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories don’t become justified just because you’re apathetic and angry. I’m not sure how you think you’re being rebellious. When you don’t vote, that’s not rebellion. No one cares. You don’t matter, politically.

That’s not what you said in the comment I responded to. You claimed that Nader could have won if progressives had voted for him instead of Gore, but there aren’t enough progressive votes.

Voting in a FPTP two party system is a coordination game, one where it is mathematically impossible for third parties to win. Pretending otherwise is sadly delusional.

It’s like you’re trying to decide which building to buy as a group to start co-op housing. Almost everyone prefers building A, but you prefer building B. If you all don’t compromise, then there is not enough money and you’re all homeless. In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don’t believe in democracy, or you’re happy with things never getting better.

If you think Biden’s candidacy was inevitable, you were asleep during the primaries. Here’s the simple obvious explanation: Biden never lost his nationwide polling lead, not once, during the whole race. Are the polls part of the conspiracy too?

The craziest thing about your conspiracy theory is that it’s flatly contradicted by Trump, who was clearly NOT the establishment choice in 2016. Establishment politicians and media pushed Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, John Kasich, anyone but Trump. They all criticized or downplayed Trump non-stop (for good reason)… and yet he won.

Well, how’s the fight coming?

I’m living through one of the biggest shifts left in politics in a generation. The left/center-left coalition has been surprisingly dominant. Mid-terms, special elections, etc. We keep winning. It’s not perfect, but it’s the right direction. But we need to keep winning elections for a long time for durable change.

At what point do you consider the fight won?

Never. Politics is a continual process, not a destination. If we get complacent, progress dies.

Do you envision some point in the future where Republicans no longer hold office and the country is some utopia of pure Democratic leadership?

No. That’s not even the point. Republicans used to be the progressive party (that’s why they use the color red). Parties don’t matter as much as ideas. The point isn’t for “my team” to win. If Republicans continue losing for a decade, then they will be forced to shift left, just as Dems shifted right after Reagan with Clinton.

I’ve read your comment a few times but I’m having a genuinely hard time parsing your point.

The person I’m responding to was saying that Nader could have won if progressives voted for him instead of Gore. I pointed out that presidential candidates need a broad coalition of voters to get enough votes, not just far left progressives.

You seem to be making a totally different argument. You claim that if Nader was the only choice, then Democratic leaning moderates would have voted for him.

I don’t mean to be rude, but what is the point of this thought experiment? Nader wasn’t the only choice. Moreover, US politics in 2000 was significantly less polarized: MANY Gore voters would have definitely voted for Bush, who campaigned under “compassionate conservatism” and was seen as a moderate, over the farthest left candidate, Nader.

If Sanders had won the nomination, I think he would have kicked ass against Trump, but Sanders sadly lost. I’m trying to understand your last line: are you asking if I would blame HRC supporters for refusing to vote for Sanders in the general and allowing a fascist corrupt dictator in? Uh, yes. Obviously I would blame them. That precisely aligns with everything I’ve said.

What are you even talking about with your first paragraph? The result of elections aren’t predictable. In fact, they’re less predictable than ever. And what’s with “choice” in quotes: are you an election truther? That’s more of a right wing conspiracy.

That’s a pathetic cowardly take on the Overton window. What even is your point? “Let’s give up because nothing matters”? Fuck that. I’m fighting.

It’s also empirically untrue: I don’t know how you haven’t noticed that the US is going through the biggest labor movement in a generation. In the last 3 years, Dems have passed one of the most progressive agendas in a generation.

It really doesn’t go both ways. The winning presidential candidate needs to get the most votes, and most US voters are not progressive. They’re moderate, or indifferent.

I don’t know how you could say that about HRC and Sanders. That’s not even a hypothetical: they literally had a head to head match where, to my huge disappointment, HRC won. Protesting HRC helped elect Trump, and obviously that hasn’t been good for progressive interests or democracy.

Yes, progressives who stay at home for the general election do not understand US democracy. The US has a 2 party FPTP system, not proportional representation. Unlike multi-party parliamentary systems, we usually have to vote for a compromise, not our top choice. If you don’t vote, you don’t “send a message”, you simply forfeit your political power. If Republicans win, and keep winning, then that’s a signal for Democrats to shift right, to try to win back the median voter.

I hate the argumentative strategy of criticizing candidates for being political “losers”. Rightwingers do that all the time. By that logic, progressives also had “loser candidates”, since many fail in the primaries. I personally don’t think Sanders, for example, was a “loser”, even if he lost in the primary.

I’m not sure what you mean.

Also, many progressives stayed home or voted for the Green Party. Not that it is more the fault of progressives than SCOTUS, but blame aside, it’s a cautionary tale.

This is a pet peeve of mine: the term “liberal” has gone through a semantic shift in the US. It used to mean “generally left leaning”. I think maybe the word “progressive” has taken on this role now.

I think the confusion comes from the fact that many European languages always used the cognates of “liberal” to mean “free market”, I.e. “economically conservative”. This is also how the term is used in some academic fields, like economics. But this is precisely the opposite of the other meaning!

It’s pretty clear the article is using the first meaning. They even use “leaning left” interchangeably with “liberal”.

My theory is that since Americans have been interacting with Europeans more online since the 2000s, the terms have become conflated.

This discussion is going off the rails. Most of these points are wild digressions.

It’s funny that you think Biden is some step above Obama when it was Obama who joined the Paris agreement in the first place

How does that argument even make sense in your brain? Obama was president at that time, so it was impossible for Biden to be the one to join it. Joining the Paris agreement is absolutely empty without actions. Unlike Biden, Obama passed no major legislation to support it and did not make climate a priority.

The economic recovery is on paper… The US is standing tall because the other countries are simply doing worse.

You’re missing the point. The US is doing better during a worldwide recession because progressive policies work. Left leaning economists like Joseph Stiglitz argue that the generous covid stimulus programs is why the US has avoided a recession, whereas Europe is suffering for their economic conservatism.

Biden eliminated $130 worth of student loans after helping create the $1.7 trillion student loan crisis we have now:

Biden was a centrist senator, but please stay on topic: we’re talking about his current presidency not what he did 20 years ago. As Sanders said, “I think he is a much more progressive president than he was a United States senator”.

The actual topic:

You made the ridiculous assertion that Democrats and Biden are “Republican-lite”. You haven’t addressed that point at all, because it’s utter indefensible bullshit and you know it. People like you are why progressives keep losing. If progressives don’t know and can’t recognize when their policies are being passed, then progressive policies will never be passed.

No. This is extremely lacking in nuance. I am not defending all compromise. Some compromises are garbage. But being against any compromise, and praising the Tea Party, is a lazy ignorant position. Obama was an overrated moderate president, unlike Biden who has tried very hard to pass progressive policies.

Even with a Republican president and senate, House Democrats somehow managed to pass some of the most generous and progressive Covid relief in the world (even more than Scandinavian countries), including expanding child benefits and Medicare, and the US is benefiting from the strongest economic recovery in the world because of it. Biden has eliminated $130 billion worth of student loans. The Inflation Reduction Act was the biggest environmental legislation in a generation, and recommits the US to the Paris agreement. You know who voted for all these good compromises? Bernie Sanders.

Calling that “Republican-lite” is straight up ignorant. Republicans wouldn’t do any of that.

This shows you don’t understand the US political system at all. The US system is intentionally designed to require compromise. The US also has extremely weak party discipline. Voting against your own party is unheard of in most parliamentary systems, but it’s normal in the US. That means there needs to be compromise even within a single party. If you want progressive policies, more progressive Dems need to be voted in.

There are people like you on the Republican side too. People who would rather the government shut down than compromise with Democrats.

Edit: if you seriously think a president Bernie Sanders wouldn’t also compromise with Republicans, then you don’t know the first thing about how legislation is passed.

Exhibit A. That is exactly what they are not doing. Anyone who thinks they are Republican lite is not paying attention.

The progressive vote is hardly guaranteed. It’s fickle, hyper critical, divided, which enervates us as a voting bloc. Conservatives are the most reliable voters, and, surprise surprise, they wield outsized political power.

Totally agree. But pressure is both positive and negative. It means rewarding good policy, not just criticizing everything. Biden has made many moves to satisfy progressives. But if none of it matters electorally, why even try? Why not go back to pandering to centrists and conservatives?

Look, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being a low information voter. People are busy, and reading endlessly about politics is an unproductive hobby, just one of many out there.

But it is absolutely true that the most critical people on the left tend to be extremely vague on the specifics. Because they don’t know the specifics. And being baseline critical allows them to protect their ego. “Those powerful elites won’t fool me!” And don’t get me wrong, powerful elites are trying to fool you. But one of the ways they do that is by convincing you that nothing ever gets better. Nothing is worth supporting. That every policy is as bad as any other. Everything that looks good is actually secretly bad.

Here’s an example. Lack of competition and enshittification is frequently in the news. Inevitably, someone will comment that “both sides” are corporate shills, and it’ll get a ton of upvotes. Anyone who knows anything about the current FTC knows that that’s insane. In a shocking move, Biden appointed a young progressive firebrand as the head of the FTC, Lina Khan. She literally wrote the academic article starting the super progressive New Brandeis school of anti-trust. This new FTC has been sometimes clumsy, but super aggressive against corporations. This was an olive branch to the far left. And it’s one of the many reasons why progressives who are paying attention begrudgingly appreciate Biden.