In an interview with NBC News' "Meet the Press," Sen. Bernie Sanders said Vice President Kamala Harris' changing views are part of "doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election."
Progressive policies are popular. But progressives have done a shit job of turning that enthusiasm into political capital. Waiting every four years for a nationally appealing, ideologically perfect candidate to magically fall in our lap seems to be a winning strategy—for republicans. Too many would be progressives give up if they can’t have the whole cake handed to them instead of rolling up some sleeves and learning how to work from scratch.
Progressive policies are popular. But progressives have done a shit job of turning that enthusiasm into political capital.
That’s because there is another type of capital…fucking money…involved.
Progressive policies may be popular, but the candidates that espouse them are immediately rolled by the corporate / industrial machine that runs the entirety of the media apparatus.
That’s how a Democratic vice presidential candidate can be viewed by people in the country as disqualified from the race for drinking a milkshake with a straw, while the Republican presidential candidate can attempt to overthrow the government, be found to be a rapist in court, be convicted of felonies, poop his way through a case of depends at every rally, free associate about locking up his political opponents, discuss shooting protestors, be the oldest candidate ever picked by a major political party for president and still never be viewed as disqualified for the position.
Trump (an incredibly dull, almost comically idiotic person) realized this himself years ago, which is why he said he could shoot someone and not lose any votes.
Way too many people in this country believe that it just so happens that every individual progressive candidate just doesn’t have the “gift” to turn their political positions (that are unpopular with business / industry / media / moneyed interests) into popularity at the polls when it’s obvious that every progressive candidate is immediately met by a wave of media discontent the moment they seem close to getting any real power.
EDIT: FDR was considered to be a centrist until he got in there. There is another way things could work which is that someone could run as a progressive sleeper candidate and pivot to the middle in order to get support for the campaign and then govern more from the left after they win.
“Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions, they have little or no independent influence on policy at all."
You realize there is a difference between ‘popular’ and ‘implemented,’ right?
Yes I do. The ACA got implemented because Obama got votes.
The agenda you want doesn’t get implemented because instead of getting out the vote, the Left manages not to get people to the polls over and over and over.
Trump is getting votes from the working class while the Left isn’t.
Politics isn’t about debating who has the best ideas, it’s about winning votes.
Hmm… How shall we win these votes from the lower class? Should we listen to their complaints and plights? Should we come up with ideas that resonate with the populace and excites them so they actually want to come out to vote for us rather than it being a feeling of obligation?
No. Let’s not do any of that, let’s just take bribes from the rich and do whatever they say. Then we can blame the left for being uninspired by our outrageous greed!
No, they really aren’t.
The ACA barely passed when Obama had a super majority in both houses.
“The Squad” has less than six members.
Ronald Reagan is still considered a ‘good’ or ‘great’ President by 75% of the population.
About 2% of the voters consider Gaza a major issue.
Progressive policies are popular. But progressives have done a shit job of turning that enthusiasm into political capital. Waiting every four years for a nationally appealing, ideologically perfect candidate to magically fall in our lap seems to be a winning strategy—for republicans. Too many would be progressives give up if they can’t have the whole cake handed to them instead of rolling up some sleeves and learning how to work from scratch.
This is exactly what I’ve been trying to convey.
Ah, so you were. Ngl wasn’t following usernames and somebody’s ‘y tu Bernie’ had me rage posting
Enraging people is all they seem to be able to do.
Have a great day.
That’s because there is another type of capital…fucking money…involved.
Progressive policies may be popular, but the candidates that espouse them are immediately rolled by the corporate / industrial machine that runs the entirety of the media apparatus.
That’s how a Democratic vice presidential candidate can be viewed by people in the country as disqualified from the race for drinking a milkshake with a straw, while the Republican presidential candidate can attempt to overthrow the government, be found to be a rapist in court, be convicted of felonies, poop his way through a case of depends at every rally, free associate about locking up his political opponents, discuss shooting protestors, be the oldest candidate ever picked by a major political party for president and still never be viewed as disqualified for the position.
Trump (an incredibly dull, almost comically idiotic person) realized this himself years ago, which is why he said he could shoot someone and not lose any votes.
Way too many people in this country believe that it just so happens that every individual progressive candidate just doesn’t have the “gift” to turn their political positions (that are unpopular with business / industry / media / moneyed interests) into popularity at the polls when it’s obvious that every progressive candidate is immediately met by a wave of media discontent the moment they seem close to getting any real power.
EDIT: FDR was considered to be a centrist until he got in there. There is another way things could work which is that someone could run as a progressive sleeper candidate and pivot to the middle in order to get support for the campaign and then govern more from the left after they win.
The only policy you provided as an example of progressive policy was the ACA, which was the brainchild of famed progressive thinker Mitt Romney.
Nothing in your response is related to progressive policies. Try harder.
Let’s turn it around.
Why don’t you list all the Progressive polices that have actually been enacted.
You must have hundreds to choose from.
You realize there is a difference between ‘popular’ and ‘implemented,’ right?
Popular opinion has virtually no impact on policy, unless you’re rich. This article describes the relationship.
“Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions, they have little or no independent influence on policy at all."
Yes I do. The ACA got implemented because Obama got votes.
The agenda you want doesn’t get implemented because instead of getting out the vote, the Left manages not to get people to the polls over and over and over.
Trump is getting votes from the working class while the Left isn’t.
Politics isn’t about debating who has the best ideas, it’s about winning votes.
It’s about the votes.
Hmm… How shall we win these votes from the lower class? Should we listen to their complaints and plights? Should we come up with ideas that resonate with the populace and excites them so they actually want to come out to vote for us rather than it being a feeling of obligation?
No. Let’s not do any of that, let’s just take bribes from the rich and do whatever they say. Then we can blame the left for being uninspired by our outrageous greed!
If you were getting any votes at all, we wouldn’t be having this talk, would we?
Look up the Moral Majority. Back in the 1970s they jumped in and grabbed power in the GOP from the ground up.
See paragraph 2.
Look up paragraph 1.
If you were getting any votes at all, we wouldn’t be having this talk, would we?