• rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    17 hours ago

    know progressive policies get people excited. They’re not interested in being progressive. They’re only interested in maintaining the status quo and if stepping on you is necessary to do that, they’ll happily do it. Some of them will make a somber face on

    All fine and dandy, but voting 3rd without the 3rd being actually viable is just voting 1st for the other side.

    • SippyCup@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      That’s an idiotic hot take that gives the Democrats in power a lot of undeserved confidence in their seats and is exactly why Kamala failed to excite voters.

      In a very small handful of very vulnerable seats, sure, that might be true. For literally every other race in the country, that’s not only bullshit it’s problematic.

      “I don’t have to try, x number of people will vote for me no matter what.” That’s not conjecture, it’s literally part of the calculation campaign managers do for every single election. X voters will always vote for D/R candidate, and Y voters never will. If X is greater than half of the number of votes in the last election, campaign to your donors.

      Democrats will not change their tune until they start seeing some risk. Safe and leans D seats need to start shifting away from them. They need to lose votes they once thought were guaranteed and a sizable portion of those votes need to be for non viable progressives.