- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Don’t blame me. I held my nose and voted for her. That was hard. I travelled to a neighboring state to canvass door to door for Bernie’s first campaign. I swore long ago that I would never vote for anyone who authorized the Iraq war, as she voted to do. And I happen to be LGBT, and she has never been much of an ally to us.
I set all that aside and voted for her.
There’s no feeling quite like giving up your dignity for absolutely nothing.
My friends and I are all huge Bernie supporters. We still voted for Hillary. We weren’t happy about it, but we voted. All the blame against Bernie supporters bothers me. It wasn’t us… And to use Bernie as the scapegoat is hiding the real problems in the system and the idiotic choices the democratic party makes. She still won the popular vote. We voted. Gerrymandering sucks.
It’s hilarious because the amount of Hillary 08 supporters who voted McCain instead of Obama is much than Bernie supporters who voted Trump.
The whole “Bernie bro” thing was 90% astroturfing. I’m sure a few individuals hopped onto that artificial bandwagon, but I don’t expect it was too many.
It’s funny because this was supposedly some huge movement and yet i never actually met any of them.
Gerrymandering makes no difference in a presidential election.
It does when the gerrymandering leads to policies and practices that make voting more difficult.
The clumping of whole states into winner takes all buckets, and the way that can subvert the overall popular vote, is identical to the dynamic of the “gerrymandering” proper term usually used with regard to congressional districts. To correct someone like you just did requires ignoring the entire meaning of the word to uphold to a strict definition of the word.
Even with a strict definition, gerrymandering is still absolutely a thing with presidential elections, with Dakota boundaries being drawn to break it into two states to give Republicans twice as many electoral votes.
It’s technically not gerrymandering, but the electoral college is a very similar issue.
I didn’t vote for Hillary but I voted for Biden.
I completely regret voting for Biden.
Meaning you have decided you would have preferred another Trump term?
Yep. Then democrats might learn to stop running candidates who just look out for different rich people.
Now we’re gonna get another wet noodle like biden and history continues to repeat itself.
I don’t believe in this “that’ll teach them and THEN they’ll turn it around” dynamic.
Just think about it. After Trump beat Hillary don’t you think they got just about the biggest wake up call of all? And then who did they run? Biden.
That’s because they thought biden could win and they were right.
If they lost twice in a row, then even their constituency would be nominating someone else.
As you say, they were right. Biden won. As long as the wet noodles keep winning, they’re going to keep coming.
Personally I don’t think another 4 years of Trump is worth the low chance that a loss to him would really, finally force the Democrats to change. If that change comes, it will be over time. The old guard is finally falling away as their health fails.
And with the Supreme Court, Roe, etc, I can’t possibly sanction more Trump years just because I think Biden is a wet noodle.
They absolutely will not, that’s the whole reason they’re there. For change to come they must be replaced.
You vote your conscience in the primary and you do your duty in the main. Simple as that.
I agree. As a Bernie supporter, though, I got a heck of a lot of pressure to “do my duty” even in the primary, because “we have to nominate the candidate who has the best chance of winning.” The shitshow is doing everything it can to move upstream.
This drives me bonkers. The candidate who has the best chance of winning is the one that gets people talking and actually interested in voting. It’s not like there’s a cage match between the candidates and it’s not like the debates actually matter in terms of who wins. Votes are what wins. Votes are caused by interest. Interest is caused by lots of things but it’s not by making sure the milquetoast center right “progressive” candidate is the one who makes it to the main event.
The other side isn’t going to vote for “our” candidate no matter what. We need to get “our” side actually interested in voting. The number of people who vote in this country is pathetic to begin with. It completely defeats the legitimacy of our elections from the off.
Sanders won in polls vs Trump. Clinton lost. The party just decided they’d rather Trump be president than Sanders.
Yeah, and that relates to why I think the focus on ranked choice voting or more parties is a red herring.
I’m cool with both of those, but they’re not a silver bullet for our problems. We already have parties within parties, which isn’t terribly different than coalitions. And we have at least two rounds of voting to narrow the field.
No matter what you do, democracy is going to be about compromise. It makes sense that you have to compromise more and more as the field narrows. Voting for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general isn’t that different from voting ranked choice Bernie #1, Hillary #2.
Ranked choice would absolutely still help. The two party state is utterly awful. And while primaries exist and people should use them, let’s be honest: most people won’t. We need it to be easier to vote for who people like. Primaries aren’t that, since they’re an extra vote you have to be aware of and take the time to research and vote for.
As an aside, ranked voting isn’t what I’d consider ideal for the general election, either. It’s still heavily disproportionate. Proportional voting is far superior for ensuring representation. Eg, suppose 25% of the population likes progressives, 50% likes centrists, and 25% like conservatives. Any form of single winner ballot (ranked choice or FPTP) is gonna favour the centrist, even though that means 50% of the population don’t get their ideal representation.
Ranked choice would absolutely still help. The two party state is utterly awful.
Depends which form of ranked choice. The naïvely-designed ones like Supplementary Vote, Contingent Vote, Instant-Runoff Voting, Top Four, Final Five, etc. don’t fix the two-party system at all, since they only count first-choice rankings in each round, just like our current system. Unfortunately those are the only ones being advocated in the US. We need Condorcet-compliant systems if we actually want to fix the spoiler effect and end the two-party system. Total Vote Runoff/Baldwin, Ranked Robin, Schulze, etc.
As an aside, ranked voting isn’t what I’d consider ideal for the general election, either. It’s still heavily disproportionate. Proportional voting is far superior for ensuring representation.
Yes!
Any form of single winner ballot (ranked choice or FPTP) is gonna favour the centrist, even though that means 50% of the population don’t get their ideal representation.
Actually, both FPTP and RCV suffer from the “center-squeeze effect”, so centrist candidates are at a disadvantage and they favor more polarizing candidates.
As an Alaskan voter, ranked choice is the only reason we have a female, Native American, Democrat congressional representative instead of Sarah Palin filling Don Young’s deep red legacy. RCV is equitable and works, but not in the way progressives hope. It allows for the most centrist candidate to be chosen that appeals to the most possible people. A two party system just becomes a battle of political extremes. And like it or not, being progressive is far left for a reason, especially in America. And I consider myself fairly progressive leaning.
As an Alaskan voter, ranked choice is the only reason we have a female, Native American, Democrat congressional representative instead of Sarah Palin filling Don Young’s deep red legacy.
Peltola would have won under FPTP, too; RCV didn’t change the outcome. The real issue is that there were two Republicans on the same ballot vs one Democrat, splitting the vote with each other.
RCV is equitable and works, but not in the way progressives hope. It allows for the most centrist candidate to be chosen that appeals to the most possible people.
No, it suffers from the center-squeeze effect and is biased against the candidates that appeal to the most possible people. In Alaska’s special election, for instance, Begich was preferred over both other candidates by a majority of voters, but RCV incorrectly eliminated him first. This flaw gave an unfair advantage to progressives in that election, which you may like, but it could just as easily give an unfair advantage to conservatives in a future election, which you wouldn’t. (If there are two Democrats and one Republicans the ballot, for instance.)
In my opinion, for single-winner elections, we need better voting systems that do always elect the candidate who appeals to the most possible people, which will allow third parties and independents to become viable, which will open people’s minds beyond the two-party false dichotomy.
A two party system just becomes a battle of political extremes. And like it or not, being progressive is far left for a reason, especially in America. And I consider myself fairly progressive leaning.
Yes, and RCV perpetuates that polarization because of the center-squeeze effect.
yeah, my state consistently goes red within minutes after polls closing [obama aside]. it’s fucking draining and depressing to even think about
I can’t say in the right words what a terrible choice Clinton was, and the party that let that nomination race play out as it did should be blamed for the result.
I’d greatly, greatly prefer an actually progressive candidate over Clinton. But I still disagree that Clinton ass a terrible choice from an objective viewpoint. The main way I can see her being terrible is largely simply in the “meta” for US elections, since she had been attacked so hard by Republicans and generally wasn’t very charismatic (not that Biden is either).
In terms of experience, she was undeniably unbeatable and I’m convinced she would have simply been Obama v1.1 in terms of policy.
IMO the strong, strong opposition to her was heavily influenced by sexism and people drinking the GOP’s propaganda. She was held to different standards than a male candidate with the same experience.
And the whole complaints about the party favouring her? So what? Of course they favoured the strongest candidate. I personally love Sanders (and if I were American, he’d have my vote), but I know he’d have an even harder time winning the general. Nor do I think it makes sense to hate Clinton herself because her party favoured her so strongly. Some “Bernie bros” were utterly bizarre in their behavior and I can only assume were trolls, as no well informed person would vote for Trump or not vote at all simply because Sanders wasn’t on the general ballot. I mean, there’s a reason he endorsed Clinton at the end.
I think a lot of opposition to her was that she was a war hawk. She was openly calling for the US to bomb Syria and establish no fly zones there, which would have also escalated a potential conflict with Russia. I don’t know a single person in my life who wanted the US to get involved in another useless war.
Not american either, but I followed it. During the nomination race, Trump had already been confirmed as the Republican nominee. There was various polling done while the Democrat race was still up, and Sanders polled quite a bit more likely to defeat Trump than Hillary. Which obviously turned out to be the case. So I don’t know how certain your “strongest candidate” statement is. Polls are not facts, but it seemed to indicate something there that the leadership of the Dems ignored.
Thank you! Other platforms are so astroturfed that this fact is often covered up with accusations of sexism. The fact is that ever poll at the time said that everyone could beat Trump except for her. She was political poison and her and the DNC cheated to make her the candidate which scared off even more voters. She is the reason we suffered as a country, not the supposed savior!
I agree. I voted for Hillary, but we were all sick of the dynastic candidates back then. Two Bushes followed by two Clinton’s rubbed people the wrong way.
Plus, the right had been demonizing Hillary for so long, people on both sides were tired of it.
That’s all before actual policy issues.
She was a poor candidate choice.
We also can’t forget that Bush lost and the Dems rolled over and let that happen. I honestly don’t see how Bush was any less bad for us than Trump but for some reason everyone is just cool with it.
Agreed. It’s recency bias. Reagan caused horrible damage as well. I don’t remember much specific about Bush Srs fckery.
9/11 was coopted into some seriously bad actions and policy. If it weren’t for the attack Bush 2 may have been a 1 term president.
deleted by creator
I want the timeline where West Palm Beach used a normal ballot and Gore won 2000. Much better point of diversion.
The candidate who made such a big deal out of climate change South Park devoted an episode to making fun of him. Aaaand then they took it back, apologized, and the educated public has begun accepting climate change.
USA could’ve been world leaders in green tech in 2001, and instead they’re just now catching up in 2023.
I want the timeline where Hinkley was a better shot.
Neither major candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote even in my very red state. It’s not a problem with people going out and voting, the voting public just didn’t like either candidate. 2016 was the first election I supported a third party, and it was the first time my parents supported an independent.
Both candidates really sucked. Trump was bad enough that I voted for Biden, despite really not liking Biden. He had almost no chance to win by state, but I still voted for him anyway just to send a message.
We need to fix our electoral system. Instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, I should be able to vote for everyone I am comfortable with. We should adopt either an approval system, range/ranked voting, or some other system other than FPTP. If you want more people to vote, that’s how you get it. Make it so people can vote their conscience without feeling like they’re throwing their vote away and maybe people will care more.
Always vote 3rd party or independent at the local level (after researching) because it’s the only way to change things over time.
Absolutely. I rarely vote for the majority party candidate, and I’ll often rotate between the minority (Dem in my case) and third parties/independents depending on the candidate.
I’m not in a swing state, so I have the benefit of always feeling like I can always vote my conscience instead of picking the lesser of two evils. However, that should ideally be the case everywhere, so we really need voting reform so you can always vote your conscience without worrying about “a vote for X is a vote for Y” nonsense.
ALWAYS do your research.
Nothing pisses me off more than a party voter who votes “because they know what’s best for me.”(quote from my dad, btw.) Unless you own a fortune 500 company, no they fucking don’t…
What’s even more upsetting is the republicans held a Supreme Court nominee hostage for a year.
Don’t forget that they then went and did the exact thing that they used as an excuse for holding up the Obama nomination - voted in Coney Barret in an election year.
They are truly disgusting, self-serving garbage with no regard for any of the consequences they are bringing down on the public. Essentially, a complete and utter lack of empathy. Which is a trait I tend to find in the people in my life that still vote for Trump/Republicans.
And despite all that, Biden refuses to stack the courts because… Oh no, it might encourage Republicans to “start” playing dirty with the supreme court! 😯
Pretty fragile political system you got there
It was designed for gridlock. The excess pressure has to vent somewhere. This is it
Why’s the alternative timeline still have to be total garbage lol. You’re making up a completely fictional timeline, have some respect for yourself man, jesus
Right? Hillary wins, Democrats still have less than 60 in the Senate, and no Supreme Court justices get appointed, including RBG’s seat after she passes. Next Republican president wins, Kennedy retires, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barret still get appointed. The end.
Harry Reid (D) changed the law in 2013 such that supreme court nominees only need 51 votes for confirmation.
- Gorsuch 54-45
- Kavanaugh 50-48
- Barrett 52-48
It wasn’t (and isn’t) a law. It’s a procedural norm that the Senate follows (except when they don’t want to) to make judicial branch nominees need to overcome a filibuster for approval, but it wasn’t required. In the past, most judges would get confirmed in the Senate with votes in the 95-0 range. Here’s a list of Senate SC confirmations. Many passed with voice votes only (didn’t even count). One (Matthews) even got confirmed with a vote of 24-23 (less than half of the total Senate voting at all).
That was, until Mitch McConnell decided he would completely block Barrack Obama’s appointments, not just to the Supreme Court, but to any federal court. McConnell blocking all Obama appointees in 2012(ish) led to Harry Reid removing the filibuster “requirement” in 2013 when the Senate made their rules. This back and forth between McConnell and Reid was really an extension from McConnell’s time as a staffer I’m the Senate when Nixon was in the White House, which the PBS article talks about. We’re just now (in the last decade or so) seeing the effects of things McConnell decided in the 60s. This is gutter politics resulting from the Senate’s bullshit rules that allow the minority party to prevent change unless it benefits the rich and powerful.
No, that was for other judicial nominees. McConnell extended it to Supreme Court nominees in 2017 after 2 failed cloture votes on Gorsuch’s nomination. Which he obviously wouldn’t have done if Hillary won.
In another timeline RGB just retired early enough Obama put a different justice in lol. In another timeline they chose a better frontrunner who could actually win with people across the aisle (Bernie was viewed differently in 2016 imo). I can’t shit on the Merrick Garland incident too much, but kind of a case where the Dems didn’t hold up enough of their end of the bargain to retain seats.
?
In an alternate timeline, Bernie wins the nomination and cleans up the general.
Problem is democrats are just looking out for different rich people.
I’m ready for Progressives to stop lamenting Bernie’s losses and start talking about the next Progressive Presidential candidate. Biden gets 4 more years… then what?
Hate to break the news to you, but all of them are looking out for different rich people. Bernie included
Wrong. Bernie is one of the few who is willing to take from the rich to give to the poor.
All politicians, including Bernie must cater to the rich and wealthy. It’s our jobs as voters to discern the true reason why they do it. It’s a cruel reality that without the support of the wealthy, no one will make it to congress to effect change. Every successful politician knows this very well. They know not to bite the hand that feeds, so each one (*that works for progress and not personal gain) must walk a very thin line to effect that change while also making sure they aren’t removed from office for fear that whatever they did could quickly be undone.
Bernie is in it for the right reasons. Biden and Clinton were in it for the right reasons. Having personally interacted with a few politicians in private settings (no cameras or hidden recorders) I can say that even some Republicans are in it for the right reasons, but differ in ideology and how to effect that change. In the end they play a fictional role when tv cameras are around.
Personally, I was most impressed by my interactions with Marco Rubio of all people. He’s exceptionally bright, and cares very deeply about the protection of this country, and it’s a very good thing he is vice chairman (or chairman during Republican senates) of the Senate Intelligence Committee as it seems to be his calling. It’s just unfortunate that in front of the cameras, he needs to dumb himself down in order to get elected by Republican voters.
I understand the sentiment, but this gives off major “TOLD YOU SO” vibes. The better message is to get people to vote based on recent accomplishments rather than “tHiNgS wOuLd HaVe BeEn BeTteR iF hIlArY wOn”
I think this was a rebuttal with hindsight as evidence for the “BoTh SiDeS aRe JuSt As BaD” folks from 2016.
it was not just one election, the democrats have done nothing but bend over backwards and fold every time the Republicans do some shit. Im over it, we cant trust the Democrats to ever organize or do shit, and we can always trust the Republicans to cheat and lie.
These are the consequences of taking Wisconsin and Michigan for granted, and talking crap about coal in Pennsylvania.
We DID go out and vote, but the candidates HAVE to run a 50 state strategy for it to make a difference.
Clinton lost Wisconsin by 22,748 votes.
Michigan by 10,704 votes.
Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes.Those three states threw the election to Trump. Clinton wins would have made the electoral vote 273 to 258 Clinton.
Biden won all three.
It’s worth noting, despite the terrible campaign, Clinton still won the popular vote.
That is a 50 state strategy. The electoral college is a problem, too.
We don’t have national elections. Carrying California by 4,269,978 votes doesn’t matter when you only need 50%+1 for a state.
The national vote count was 65,853,514 for Clinton and 62,984,828 for Trump, a difference of 2,868,686.
As noted, California had a 4.2 million overvote.
Which highlights the even bigger problem - around half the eligible electorate don’t think either is worth voting for, and there are no realistic other choices.
A lot of it is people can’t get the time off to go vote or local rules have made in person voting take so long, it’s virtually impossible to stand in an 8+ hour line to even get in the door to vote.
We need a national vote by mail plan like we implemented in Oregon 23 years ago. It works, participation is higher than any non-vote by mail state.
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/01/05/oregon-voter-turnout-highest-in-us-general-election-2022/
”61.5% of all the eligible citizens in Oregon cast a ballot in our election,” he said, “and we edged out Maine by .05%”
Meanwhile…
“Nationwide, nearly 107.7 million valid votes were cast in the 2022 House elections, representing about 45.1% of the estimated voting-eligible population, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of official returns from all 50 states. That was down from 48.1% turnout in 2018 – when midterm voting reached levels not seen in more than a century – but still higher than the 34.4% turnout rate for House elections in the 2014 midterms.”
How did Oregon do in 2018 and 2014?
67.8% and 70.9% respectively.
Vote by mail works.
Or even better online voting, or phone app. It is no less secure than an old lady at a poll booth or voting by mail.
Vote by mail still has an auditable paper trail. Text/phone voting does not.
Yeah, dial in alone wouldn’t work well. Just phone app/website.
I have seen 11/22/63. I’m not sure where that alternative timeline will take us.
So have I and I’m 100% willing to chance it.
As usual, the book is leagues better than the show, though it was a pretty good adaptation.
TIL there’s a show adaptation
Pretty sure it aired on Hulu.
We needed candidates that inspire people like Obama did (even though Obama threw the organizational infrastructure in the trash after his win). Hillary… did not.
