• when@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 hours ago

    It’s extremely interesting that democratic politicians have not only managed people (traditional voters) into believing that this genocide is normal but if you demand or say anything against this genocide then these normal people will attack you instead of asking their party leader “Why is it essential for their party to keep supporting genocide?”

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Just completely ignored the spelled put reason for all of this on your way to this comment huh?

      Not voting does nothing but say that your opinions are not worth listening to.

      That is the entirety of what that action says.

      There is no other message that gets recieved.

      Because under FPTP, there is no other message the Dems can afford to receive.

      The math literally works out that you are either supporting them or that you are not, and that the best spent energy is on consistent voters who are able to be convinced, not on morons who think that saying maybe they’ll vote this time if all of their demands are met by election day with a divided house and senate, swearzies.

      To party planners this stunt you’re pulling looks like nothing but Lucy with the football saying you swear you aren’t gonna pull it away this time if they took a run at it like that really old guy did in '16 and '20 before being completely abandoned at the polls.

      Dependability and consistency is what gets names on primary ballots that can make change.

      You have to show up and do the bare minimum work, consistently, or you are mathematically not worth the trouble of trying to please.

      The time to make this stand was in the primary season, and y’all told the democrats that being even low-key anti-genocode is nothing but running at Lucy’s football yet again, after the most vocal members of the progressive flank about it all got knocked out in that stage of the election.

      You had your chance to send the message and you fucking wasted it on the “none of the above” bullshit.

      You literally saw the knife coming down on the people who were listening to you and instead of showing up for them you stood there and then scratched your head over why nobody’s around who’s listening to you anymore.

      Fuck you.

      You created the current crop of Dems that have to be convinced even harder now that pursuing a cease-fire is worth anything electorally, and the only reason that’ll even be possible is a once in a century replacement of the candidate for head of the party.

      • Knightfox@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 minutes ago

        Very very well said and your point about consistency is absolutely true. Someone posted an article a few months back in which young people were threatening not to vote for Biden because of the support for Israel and the first thing to go through my head was, “So basically no change.”

        You seem very aware of this, but I wanted to add some numbers in case you or someone else wanted the comparison. The highest 18-29 year old turn out was 2018 at 28% (almost like buyers remorse for not showing out in 2016). In 2014 the turn out was 14% while in 2022 it was 23%.

        In 2020 there were 158 million people who turned out to vote and there are an estimated 52 million people in the age group (lets assume they are all eligible to vote). Lets say this group of unhappy progressives accounts for 10% of the turnout and instead of having 28% we instead will get 18%. The difference is 5.2 million votes (28% equals 14.5 million and 18% equals 9.3 million) which equates to about 3% of the total voters if we look at 2020’s general election.

    • Ephoron@lemmy.kde.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I think the trick has been to give people a plausible narrative that makes them sound like the clever ones, standard power-play. People love that stuff, myself included, we’re all vulnerable to it. It’s why conspiracy theories work so well, but here, the same psychology is put to use rewarding people for saying stuff that’s obviously morally bankrupt. I think it works the same way a peacock’s tail works in evolution, the idea being that ‘surely no one would say something so obviously awful unless they had a really very complicated and convincing reason’

      It’s allowed some of the decade’s worst atrocities to go virtually unopposed.