A Gallup poll found the split between Republicans and Democrats about their satisfaction with the direction of the country was at its widest since 2001.
And a lot of leftists are rightfully angry that so many liberals assume that leftists are somehow over-represented among the people who didn’t vote. There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. All you have is a smattering of online noise makers that could just as well be influence ops. The following is a quote from a pew study in 2021.
Although they are one of the smallest political typology groups, Progressive Left are the most
politically engaged group in the Democratic coalition. No other group turned out to vote at a
higher rate in the 2020 general election, and those who did nearly unanimously voted for Joe
Biden. They donated money to campaigns in 2020 at a higher rate than any other Democratic-
oriented group.
Progressives are consistently the most reliable Democratic voting bloc, not to mention the most reliable small dollar donors. They also make up the lion’s share of the Democratic ground game which is - not coincidentally - about the only thing Democrats do right.
What you are doing is slander of the left and mindless parroting of establishment bullshit talking-points. You are also helping to perpetuate the establishment’s record of abject failure by giving them a scapegoat.
Where in my comment did I put the onus on progressives? I’m one of the progressives in that demographic, both in the way I voted and donated. I donated to every major progressive candidate in 2021. None of which live in my state. Not that I need to prove anything to you, internet random, just trying to point out how asinine your strawman is.
I said leftists because the left is a broad spectrum with varying beliefs. I’m fully aware that I’m basing my opinion on my own anecdotal evidence, but I’m not someone who only pays attention during the election and follows whatever the current group thought is. Most of the people I saw speaking out against voting were young leftists that were hung up on the US’ role in the genocide happening in Palestine, as if the US hasn’t been a major supporter of almost every imperialist/authoritarian country we’ve had dealings with basically since our inception… I wish people could be more realistic about this stuff. The choice was between more of the same neo-liberalist soft imperialism we’ve had since the early 90’s and outright fascism. By omitting their vote, a lot of young leftists chose outright fascism.
And where is your evidence that “so many leftists” were the problem? You could have said “so many people” or “so many Democrats”. No, you singled out one group to target. You have no more proof that it was “the left” then you would have had for “progressives”.
Not that I need to prove anything to you, internet random
then
Most of the people I saw speaking out against voting were young leftists
So, which is it? Are Internet randoms representative of something, or not?
I’m basing my opinion on my own anecdotal evidence
There is no such thing as anecdotal evidence.
young leftists that were hung up on the US’ role in the genocide happening in Palestine
Imagine that, getting hung up on a silly thing like genocide. Well, they voiced their apparent hang ups and the then-candidate called them anti-semites. If they didn’t vote for Harris, I blame Harris. The Democrats incessantly piss on the left then whine and moan every time they voice decent. It’s a fucking miracle that there hasn’t been a mass desertion of the Democrats by the left.
If you are still blaming voters and not the DNC, then you are the problem. Shit candidates get shit turnout. It’s that simple. No amount of blaming random groups of voters will change that, especially in the long run.
You could have said “so many people” or “so many Democrats”. No, you singled out one group to target.
Democrats are leftists. -.-
It’s a spectrum. Left to right. There’s a lot of groups along that spectrum. “Leftist” is the broadest, most general possible term to use to refer to various people among left leaning idealogies.
So, which is it? Are Internet randoms representative of something, or not?
You, Internet stranger, as an individual, are not representative of anything other than your clear intent to misunderstand everything I try to communicate to you.
There is no such thing as anecdotal evidence.
Hard disagree. Anecdotal evidence is the terminology we use to describe trends we personally see. It’s colored by your perception, obviously, which is why you shouldn’t give it the same weight as actual data, but you can absolutely use it to inform your own opinions (which should also be influenced be real factual evidence/data). To write it off completely is pretty silly, IMO.
I don’t disagree with some of the sentiment you share, and I absolutely agree that Democrat leadership has been failing Americans for a long long time, on many issues, but you’re not going to convince me that a bunch of left leaning people abstaining to vote wasn’t them not being able to see the forest through the trees. Obviously genocide is bad, but it’s worse now that we have an authoritarian in charge who not only wants to support the genocide, but wants to get in on it, maybe open a new resort location after they clear out all the rubble and bodies.
I feel like I’m trying to explain something that’s very obvious, at least to me, and getting nowhere. I guess just keep ignoring the consequences of not voting against a wannabe dictator. Some people can’t be helped.
Democrats want to take back the means of production under the control of labor? Exactly what do you think “left” means? No, Democrats (or at least those running the party) are not left. Everything they do, even the positive stuff, gets structured to serve capital.
It’s a spectrum. Left to right.
Yes it is. Democrats are on the right side of that spectrum. Democratic voters are at least shifting, but most are still right of center. Sure, they hide behind Republicans on a national level, but there are plenty of places where they dominate local politics, and they always put wealth and capital first. No left party would fund schools with property taxes for instance.
your clear intent to misunderstand everything I try to communicate to you.
Not at all, you are just not doing a great job of recognizing that we have different frames of reference. Pretty common in Internet discourse.
Anecdotal evidence is the terminology we use to describe trends we personally see.
I know what you meant. The plural of anecdote isn’t “data”. Colored by our own perception or not, that is not evidence. This shit gets hauled out every single election, and when the analysis is actually done, it never turns out to be accurate. Of course that doesn’t keep the neoliberals from hauling it out again half a microsecond after they lose an election.
but you’re not going to convince me that a bunch of left leaning people abstaining to vote wasn’t them not being able to see the forest through the trees.
What is a “bunch” though, and why pin it specially on the “left”? People politically engaged enough to call themselves leftists don’t generally skip out on voting, no matter what a few noisy voices say, or what your vibe-based analysis tells you.
Turnout in 2024 was not exceptionally low. In fact, it was a little higher than average. 2020 was the exception with record turnout because of Covid and Trump being fresh in voters minds. Four years later the drama got boring and normies checked out. Democrats counted on Trump to inspire their voters, and lightning didn’t strike twice. Kamala lost because she was boring and Trump was interesting. I think she deserved to lose for a lot of other reasons, but that’s the one that mattered.
I guess just keep ignoring the consequences of not voting against a wannabe dictator.
Ah, but here’s the thing. I’m on the left and consequentially, I did vote for Harris. I tried to convince others to do the same. Not by berating them like I’m guessing you did, but in ways that might have worked. I also tried to stop the vote scolds from putting their egos ahead of effective advocacy, but I’m pretty sure they were all as stubborn as you.
You accuse me of misinterpreting what you say, and here you are twisting my words. I never once said anything to indicate that not voting is fine or inconsequential. My point is that being “left” isn’t what drives it. Where evidence exists, it tells the opposite story. Making it a “left” problem is a Democratic establishment strategy to undermine the kinds of reforms that might get those normies attention.
Yeah, you’re still misunderstanding everything and arguing semantics. Sure US democrats are right of center relative to EU politics, but we’re talking about US politics, so one would assume we would operate off of the Overton window in US politics as our frame of reference. But nah, whatever “wins” the argument I guess. I’m done talking to you. Bye bye.
Yeah, you’re still misunderstanding everything and arguing semantics.
You claimed that people on “the left” didn’t vote for Harris. There is no possible interpretation of that assertion without determining who “the left” is. The is a semantic argument at it’s core. I too hate arguing semantics, but they are important. I will again point out that you just straw-manned me as choosing to ignore the consequences of not voting. My entire point was to defend the left against your charge. Why would I care to do that if I didn’t agree it was a bad thing to do? You accusing me of (I assume intentionally) misunderstanding you really looks projection.
Sure US democrats are right of center relative to EU politics
That is not what I said. I did not reference the EU at all. You seem to think that left to right being a spectrum means that it’s an entirely relative distinction. It isn’t. Anyways, in the common rhetoric, when Democrats accuse the left of being disloyal to the party, they are not talking about the ideological breadth of the Democratic party, they mean the part of the party that’s further left than the rest of the party. I believe you when you say that you did not intend to say the same, but you have to realize that you can’t just ignore the political context in which you use words like that. Intentional or not, you joined the chorus of establishment Democratic voices using those same words.
one would assume we would operate off of the Overton window in US politics as our frame of reference
It’s not really a matter of the overton window, though I can see why I could have made that more clear. I think I just cleared that up above. To state it again simply, the words you used are being used by the Democratic establishment, and they are not talking about anyone left of the fascists. They are talking about the “Bernie wing”, and they make that clear.
But nah, whatever “wins” the argument I guess. I’m done talking to you. Bye bye.
And a lot of leftists are rightfully angry that so many liberals assume that leftists are somehow over-represented among the people who didn’t vote. There is absolutely no evidence to support that claim. All you have is a smattering of online noise makers that could just as well be influence ops. The following is a quote from a pew study in 2021.
Progressives are consistently the most reliable Democratic voting bloc, not to mention the most reliable small dollar donors. They also make up the lion’s share of the Democratic ground game which is - not coincidentally - about the only thing Democrats do right.
What you are doing is slander of the left and mindless parroting of establishment bullshit talking-points. You are also helping to perpetuate the establishment’s record of abject failure by giving them a scapegoat.
Where in my comment did I put the onus on progressives? I’m one of the progressives in that demographic, both in the way I voted and donated. I donated to every major progressive candidate in 2021. None of which live in my state. Not that I need to prove anything to you, internet random, just trying to point out how asinine your strawman is.
I said leftists because the left is a broad spectrum with varying beliefs. I’m fully aware that I’m basing my opinion on my own anecdotal evidence, but I’m not someone who only pays attention during the election and follows whatever the current group thought is. Most of the people I saw speaking out against voting were young leftists that were hung up on the US’ role in the genocide happening in Palestine, as if the US hasn’t been a major supporter of almost every imperialist/authoritarian country we’ve had dealings with basically since our inception… I wish people could be more realistic about this stuff. The choice was between more of the same neo-liberalist soft imperialism we’ve had since the early 90’s and outright fascism. By omitting their vote, a lot of young leftists chose outright fascism.
And where is your evidence that “so many leftists” were the problem? You could have said “so many people” or “so many Democrats”. No, you singled out one group to target. You have no more proof that it was “the left” then you would have had for “progressives”.
then
So, which is it? Are Internet randoms representative of something, or not?
There is no such thing as anecdotal evidence.
Imagine that, getting hung up on a silly thing like genocide. Well, they voiced their apparent hang ups and the then-candidate called them anti-semites. If they didn’t vote for Harris, I blame Harris. The Democrats incessantly piss on the left then whine and moan every time they voice decent. It’s a fucking miracle that there hasn’t been a mass desertion of the Democrats by the left.
If you are still blaming voters and not the DNC, then you are the problem. Shit candidates get shit turnout. It’s that simple. No amount of blaming random groups of voters will change that, especially in the long run.
Democrats are leftists. -.-
It’s a spectrum. Left to right. There’s a lot of groups along that spectrum. “Leftist” is the broadest, most general possible term to use to refer to various people among left leaning idealogies.
You, Internet stranger, as an individual, are not representative of anything other than your clear intent to misunderstand everything I try to communicate to you.
Hard disagree. Anecdotal evidence is the terminology we use to describe trends we personally see. It’s colored by your perception, obviously, which is why you shouldn’t give it the same weight as actual data, but you can absolutely use it to inform your own opinions (which should also be influenced be real factual evidence/data). To write it off completely is pretty silly, IMO.
I don’t disagree with some of the sentiment you share, and I absolutely agree that Democrat leadership has been failing Americans for a long long time, on many issues, but you’re not going to convince me that a bunch of left leaning people abstaining to vote wasn’t them not being able to see the forest through the trees. Obviously genocide is bad, but it’s worse now that we have an authoritarian in charge who not only wants to support the genocide, but wants to get in on it, maybe open a new resort location after they clear out all the rubble and bodies.
I feel like I’m trying to explain something that’s very obvious, at least to me, and getting nowhere. I guess just keep ignoring the consequences of not voting against a wannabe dictator. Some people can’t be helped.
Democrats want to take back the means of production under the control of labor? Exactly what do you think “left” means? No, Democrats (or at least those running the party) are not left. Everything they do, even the positive stuff, gets structured to serve capital.
Yes it is. Democrats are on the right side of that spectrum. Democratic voters are at least shifting, but most are still right of center. Sure, they hide behind Republicans on a national level, but there are plenty of places where they dominate local politics, and they always put wealth and capital first. No left party would fund schools with property taxes for instance.
Not at all, you are just not doing a great job of recognizing that we have different frames of reference. Pretty common in Internet discourse.
I know what you meant. The plural of anecdote isn’t “data”. Colored by our own perception or not, that is not evidence. This shit gets hauled out every single election, and when the analysis is actually done, it never turns out to be accurate. Of course that doesn’t keep the neoliberals from hauling it out again half a microsecond after they lose an election.
What is a “bunch” though, and why pin it specially on the “left”? People politically engaged enough to call themselves leftists don’t generally skip out on voting, no matter what a few noisy voices say, or what your vibe-based analysis tells you.
Turnout in 2024 was not exceptionally low. In fact, it was a little higher than average. 2020 was the exception with record turnout because of Covid and Trump being fresh in voters minds. Four years later the drama got boring and normies checked out. Democrats counted on Trump to inspire their voters, and lightning didn’t strike twice. Kamala lost because she was boring and Trump was interesting. I think she deserved to lose for a lot of other reasons, but that’s the one that mattered.
Ah, but here’s the thing. I’m on the left and consequentially, I did vote for Harris. I tried to convince others to do the same. Not by berating them like I’m guessing you did, but in ways that might have worked. I also tried to stop the vote scolds from putting their egos ahead of effective advocacy, but I’m pretty sure they were all as stubborn as you.
You accuse me of misinterpreting what you say, and here you are twisting my words. I never once said anything to indicate that not voting is fine or inconsequential. My point is that being “left” isn’t what drives it. Where evidence exists, it tells the opposite story. Making it a “left” problem is a Democratic establishment strategy to undermine the kinds of reforms that might get those normies attention.
Yeah, you’re still misunderstanding everything and arguing semantics. Sure US democrats are right of center relative to EU politics, but we’re talking about US politics, so one would assume we would operate off of the Overton window in US politics as our frame of reference. But nah, whatever “wins” the argument I guess. I’m done talking to you. Bye bye.
You claimed that people on “the left” didn’t vote for Harris. There is no possible interpretation of that assertion without determining who “the left” is. The is a semantic argument at it’s core. I too hate arguing semantics, but they are important. I will again point out that you just straw-manned me as choosing to ignore the consequences of not voting. My entire point was to defend the left against your charge. Why would I care to do that if I didn’t agree it was a bad thing to do? You accusing me of (I assume intentionally) misunderstanding you really looks projection.
That is not what I said. I did not reference the EU at all. You seem to think that left to right being a spectrum means that it’s an entirely relative distinction. It isn’t. Anyways, in the common rhetoric, when Democrats accuse the left of being disloyal to the party, they are not talking about the ideological breadth of the Democratic party, they mean the part of the party that’s further left than the rest of the party. I believe you when you say that you did not intend to say the same, but you have to realize that you can’t just ignore the political context in which you use words like that. Intentional or not, you joined the chorus of establishment Democratic voices using those same words.
It’s not really a matter of the overton window, though I can see why I could have made that more clear. I think I just cleared that up above. To state it again simply, the words you used are being used by the Democratic establishment, and they are not talking about anyone left of the fascists. They are talking about the “Bernie wing”, and they make that clear.
How unsurprising.