politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think progressives tend to overestimate their numbers. Maybe Millennials and Gen z are moving the needle a little further to the left, but I don't think it's as much as many progressives want to believe. There are many millions of Americans under 40 who are moderate, center right, or right wing. The US in general is further right than most other democracies, I would say. In fact, I think the US overall is center to center right. For this reason, I think it is generally a losing strategy for the Democrats to prioritize progressive policies, especially in the presidential election.
Most progressives live in deep blue states; states that are going to go for the Democrats regardless. Whereas, the states that matter, the swing states/purple states are much more moderate. Those are the states the Democrats have to focus on, because of how our election system works. For this reason alone, it makes more sense for Democrats to try and court moderates, at least in the presidential election. But, it's probably true of Congress as well. I think moderate candidates do better in most states and congressional districts than progressive candidates.
It brings me no joy saying this. I'm politically left, I would estimate further left than the majority of Americans. I have been advocating for radical changes for years, but it's mostly fallen on deaf ears, and some of my fellow Americans have been aggressively hostile to the ideas I've been advocating for. Americans, generally, like capitalism, they like class hierarchies, and hierarchies in general, because they believe that some people are just inherently superior to others, and that doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon.
Progressives aren't the majority, but there's enough of them that democrats can't win without them.
There's a theory called the Overton Window and Dems moving to the center has shifted this whole country to the right. We lost abortion rights because of it and our election integrity and voter access is at risk because of it.
If you want to look at a winning strategy that directly refutes your point look at FDR.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Franklin_D._Roosevelt,_third_and_fourth_terms
I don't agree. I don't think Democrats shifted anything, they were just going where the voters were. Democrats have to win elections and that requires getting people to vote for you. The Democrats didn't shift voters to the right, the voters shifted Democrats to the right.
I think abortion rights are a winning issue for Democrats, but not because it's an exclusively progressive policy. I think abortion rights is a very popular policy among moderates.
I'm talking about where American voters are today, not where they were 80 or 90 years ago, and today I think a majority of Americans are politically moderate.
Buying power and income disparity are at the same levels they were 80-90 years ago.
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2019/4/1/18286084/gilded-age-income-inequality-robber-baron
Americans support "progressive" policy when it's not framed as a political question.
https://time.com/6990721/us-politics-polarization-myth/
Lastly, you think Americans were more progressive on average 90 years ago?
That article you linked to supports my point. From the article:
But, yes, moderates can, like progressives, want to improve the healthcare system and address climate change. Where they differ is in how they would go about it, and I think most moderates would prefer to go about addressing those issues by making as few radical changes as possible.
We differ on a salient point I think. You view progressives as radicals.
I don't think what the progressive wing of the party are asking for is radical. Neither does the article I posted.
The Overton window is happening because 1/3 of the country doesn't vote. Repubs are still able to take elections despite a majority of Americans opposing their policies. If it were impossible for the further right party to win, both parties would shift left.
That seems like a bit of an oversimplification based on the frequency of Dem wins to the voting percentage.
If true though, wouldn't the US have been the more right wing under 2012 Obama than Trump since he had a lower voter turnout?
You can't use evidence of a trend as evidence of political motivations is kinda what I'm getting at.
It's a well regarded theory in political science. It also is present in many other democracies, look at Germany or Sweden for a current example.
Is there a name for the subject you're speaking of, or do you just mean as a general part of political science? Like I've seen memes referring to the subject, but I don't take it as fact. I do know a bit about the multi-party Parliament and local governance of Sweden, but admittedly nothing deep. What would you suggest I further read up on in their system? And what study of Germany do you suggest I read in relation to this?
My own experiences in studying Vietnam have actually led me to the opposite position, where despite a voter turnout of 99%+, the country is still quite socially conservative.
Oh, no. I was referencing the Overton window in general. Not voter turnout as a function of conservatism vs liberalism vs progressivism.
Here's a quick article that will give some jumping off points for further research.
https://brockpress.com/the-overton-window-on-media-criticism-is-not-as-wide-as-it-needs-to-be/
Low voter turnout is a voter access and apathy issue. Disenfranchised voters tend to not vote and that's a platform and outreach issue for the DNC. Low voter access is shit that elected dems should put first and foremost in their agenda once elected, but only Abrams and Sanders have talked about election reform since Carter was president.
The apathy is directly tied to the DNC pushing conservative and moderate policies instead of progressive ones. When voters see so little difference between the two parties, where neither party is promising the policies they're looking for, then they see no point in showing up at the polls.
This is my understanding of the problem as well. Moderate dems are selling the party to billionaires
I wish they would prioritize that. It is a bit of a chicken and egg problem currently. Instead we're losing voter protections from a corrupt SCOTUS, so it is becoming harder to vote overall.
Democrats are not the party responsible for the massive shift in the Overton Window. They didn't do much to stop it, but they weren't driving it.
And what have they done to stop it?
Gay marriage, the ACA, the Ledbetter act, more would be better, but they aren't doing nothing.
Theres so few accomplishments for the centrist Dems that I keep seeing Ledbetter paraded around like it was revolutionary. All Ledbetter was was an extension of the statute of limitations on another law. It should have and could have been more than that.
None of these things should have been revolutionary, and yet they still needed laws or court cases to make them happen.
If we didn't Republicans trying to drag things backwards and a bunch of idiots finding excuses to not vote for the only other candidate with a chance of winning, things could start to improve.
Some people wont sign on to genocide whether their party will or not. Dont the christians say god over country over party or something like that? These arent idiots, and your saying they are seems a bit petulant. You cant demand the world act like you want it to, unless you are super spoiled rich? You rich, bro?
Let's not give Congress credit for something that the courts did.
Ah, sorry. I thought you were referring to election reform or presidential messaging. Yes, Dems in Congress have been a slight net positive.
I was just jumping into the middle of the conversation. It does look like the other threads were more focused on the presidential level.
I need to get better at reading usernames