• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    The point is there’s been a political mandate for economic change for over a century…

    The reason the Dems don’t have the numbers to accomplish it, is them giving up on progressive economics.

    Think of it like a restaurant. One that used to serve food people wanted and was always busy. Then the restaurant got kick backs from a differemt food supplier. One whose food was worse, and thus unpopular.

    The restaurant loses business because the food gets worse, it takes a while because people only go out to eat every four years, and the only other restaurant serves shit sandwiches exclusively.

    People won’t still go out to eat and pick the shit sandwich, they’ll just stop going out to eat. The patrons of the shit sandwich restaurant will eat anything, they’ll keep showing up.

    In this analogy, that explains the decrease in Dem voters while Republicans stay steady.

    We can bitch and moan when the shit sandwich restaurant is the most popular, but bullying people to still patronize the restaurant that’s a shadow of it’s former self isn’t going to work as well as that restaurant just serving the food customers want.

    But they won’t do that, because they make more serving cheap shitty food even if they get less customers

    It’s really as easy as running a Dem candidate that is as progressive as Dem voters.

    Hell, Pennsylvania is an important battleground state where close to 60% of voters want to ban fracking…

    If Kamala gave voters what they want on just that one single issue it would likely hand her the presidency. But she’s not.

    For some reason we only hear “this is what voters want” from the Dem.party when it’s used to rationalize being more conservative. When the voters are more liberal than the party, the voters are told their views don’t matter, and that depresses turnout which is why we don’t have “the mandate” we used to.

    I hope that makes sense.

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      People won’t still go out to eat and pick the shit sandwich, they’ll just stop going out to eat. The patrons of the shit sandwich restaurant will eat anything, they’ll keep showing up.

      continuing with your analogy, people have NOT stopped going out to eat. a significant portion have absolutely gone over to the shit sandwich shop.

      a greater percentage of voting-age people voted in 2020 compared to 1932. In 1932 they were much more unified under FDR, today we are more evenly split between R and D.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_United_States_presidential_elections

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        If the two restaurants both serve shitty food, there’s not as much judgement for eating a shit sandwich. Because everyone eating at a restaurant is eating ahitry food. It becomes normalized.

        The “good” restaurant becoming ahittier doesn’t steal customers from Shit Sandwiches, it just makes people think that shit sandwiches isn’t as crazy as it seems because both restaurants serv shit.

        Which still fits.

        Dems moving to the right year after year and adopting things like fracking and a border wall when a decade ago we said only a racist idiot would want those things… Makes the average American question if other “conservative” ideas are really as bad as Dems say they are, or if 5 years both parties would want them.

        It only hurts the left and helps the right

        • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I agree it absolutely hurts the left and helps the right, but we disagree on the cause. Remember in your analogy the food quality is not the only thing that diners care about. They are being lured to the shitty restaurant by stuff that has nothing to do with food at all.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yep.

            So making the “good” restaurants food shitty only hurts their business, and their the only ones with the power to set their menu.

            We can protest, leave bad reviews, stop going to the restaurant, anything to communicate that we would eat there more if they had better food.

            But at the end of the day it’s up to the handful of people running the restaurant/party what they serve up.

            • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              So making the “good” restaurants food shitty only hurts their business

              not if the customers they’re losing don’t care about food. I think we’re gonna have to agree to disagree here.