If we can’t be bothered to vote in the primaries, wjy would anyone believe us that a progressive candidate would somehow lure millions more to vote?

As I know the comments will be, uhhh, fun, I’ve turned off reply notifications.

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’ve gotten more down votes saying exactly this.

    In 2020 Biden won with 81.3 million votes. In 2024 Trump won with 77.3 million votes. All we had to do to avoid the mess we are in is turn out with the same “enthusiasm” we had for Biden in 2020.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          Sorry, but that logic just doesn’t work at the population level.

          A large group of people isn’t going to change if you keep telling them “do better”. You have to work with their natural interests and responses. If a politician manages to motivate people, people will vote for them. If they don’t, people won’t.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Too bad it’s seemingly impossible to get a Democratic candidate who anyone actually wants. But sure, keep telling people it’s their fault. Worked wonders in '24!

              What, Kamala had the agency to change her stance on Israel, which the Democratic campaign knew was a dealbreaker? Sorry, it’s an ironclad law of the universe that’s not possible. Guess you have to continue going to the dentist who keeps making you gargle literal shit.

              • Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                1 day ago

                So because Kamela didn’t change her stance on genocide, you now have Trump who has the exact same stance on genocide, and wants to start 8 wars and a civil war as well.

                Congratulations, you played yourself.

                Even a dentist that makes you gargle shit is better than the dentist that makes you gargle shit and shoots you in the head afterwards.

                • njm1314@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  21 hours ago

                  It’s simply amazing how Kamala Harris cared so much about killing brown people that it mattered more than winning the election.

                • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  I sure as hell haven’t played myself, considering I’m not an American!

                  But you’ve accidentally put it exactly right:

                  So because Kamela didn’t change her stance on genocide, you now have Trump who has the exact same stance on genocide, and wants to start 8 wars and a civil war as well.

                  Yes, because Kamala didn’t change her stance on genocide, you now have Trump who has the exact same stance on genocide, and wants to start 8 wars and a civil war as well.

                  One person had the chance to change it all, but it was more important to ensure that Gaza continues to be erased.

                  You could have convinced millions of people to vote, or to change their vote, and you’d still have to convince many more to change the result. Or you could convince one single person, and it would have changed the result. Which is more realistic?

        • Sharkticon@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          22 hours ago

          I fucking loathe this mindset. I mean I hate it with such a passion. Cuz all you’re saying is you don’t care if you lose. You don’t care if the worst happens to all of us you’d rather not change your ways. Cause guess what? You’re wrong.

          You can say that until the cows come home but people turn out to vote when they’re spoken to and engaged. Thinking anything else means you’re okay with losing. And I resent the fuck out of my life being put in jeopardy because some of you are okay with losing.

        • kuhli@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I agree with this, but that doesn’t convince people to actually turn out and vote.

          A politician needs to be able to generate enthusiasm to get people to vote

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          We simply know that people are more likely to vote when they are enthusiastic. You can either keep telling people “do better” and keep losing, or you can accept human nature and use it to your advantage by running a candidate that people actually want.

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            People should have been planty enthusiastic to get anyone but Trump as President, but that shows how strong the misinformation machine is.

            Personally I’ve always favored a system like Australia where voting is compulsory and punished with a small fine. That filters out the principled from the merely lazy.

            • Uruanna@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              18 hours ago

              Yes, but they do that only when they want you to vote. Imagine making it compulsory to vote, and then also suppressing your ability to vote… Then the fine is just a new tax and you still don’t get to vote.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              No, it simply shows that the Dem strategy of “putting up a turd that doesn’t stink quite as bad as the other one” isn’t enough to actually win when it matters.

              • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 day ago

                We are back to the original point that people are so determined to blame Democrats that they sabotage their own efforts to get something better.

                  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    22 hours ago

                    Why is it Democrats responsibility to get progressives to vote in primaries? If you don’t vote, politicians don’t care about your opinions.