486
John Fetterman says he'll 'never understand' progressives who refuse to support Joe Biden
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2023
486 points (92.8% liked)
politics
18866 readers
21 users here now
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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fetterman is 100% right.
He's basically calling out progressives for essentially not wanting power. Those progressives rather sit on the sidelines and complain about everything than ever gaining even a morsel of political power to where they could actually do something.
Falling in-line is what has led conservatives to gain enough control of the government to throw out what most considered a done deal. RvW is gone (as well as any hope for reasonable gun restrictions, as well as a host of other no nonsense laws) because Republicans know about playing the long game and know that collectively they can accomplish far more things.
It's funny that progressives love to push the idea of collective bargaining when it comes to labor relations and yet they can't figure out that collectively if they fell behind the leader of the Democrats, their voices would be much better heard.
Shit that’s a good comparison that frankly I’m embarrassed I hadn’t thought of. 👍
Yup. Imperfect world requires imperfect allies.
I think that's just what democracy is. Healthy democracies are pluralistic. And governing coalitions don't have 100% alignment on all issues.
Don't worry, apparently not a single liberal has either!
Lmao that's adorable that you think that. You think I was excited about fuckin John Kerry? Get real. My candidate that year famously... yelled loudly... and it ended his entire political career.
You have no idea the amount of settling I was willing to accept to see Bush not get re-elected.
You SHOULD have been excited about John Kerry. And Hillary. And Biden.
Those are the candidates that actually have a shot at winning. I was happy to vote for Howard Dean, and Sander and yet I know enough to fall behind the candidate that actually has a shot at winning if the one I vote for doesn't get the nomination. Dean made the exact same mistake that Sanders did - he had the naivete to count on the Left and the youth vote to get him elected. And like we've seen countless times before, those people don't vote. All the comments and posts and messages and tweets by liberals online about how this person or that person should win, when it comes to election day they don't show up.
So with that losing strategy proven time and time again, why the fuck should Democrats go to the Left, when voters are clearly showing them that they want more centrist candidates?
The news media ripped Dean apart for having the gall to be emotional after his primary win, but nothing stopped his Base from following up his victory with supporting him in subsequent primaries. And yet they didn't. Because liberals don't WANT to win. They want to complain.
I was very excited about Hillary and Biden. I volunteered for their campaigns. I'm a liberal. I love liberal candidates, in general
John Kerry is the political equivalent of plain vanilla ice cream. Sure it's ice cream. But it isn't anything to get worked up about.
My post is about how I will generally vote for people I don't necessarily like to be President if it means a liberal gets in. I'm not blindly loyal, but I'm sure as shit not allowing a Trump or Ramaswamy in over like, Sanders, if he'd won.
I hope our President in 28 is Buttigieg. Dude lights a fire in me. If he loses the primary, I will still almost certainly be voting for the Democrat, because insane felons dont win the Democrat primary, so I'm unlikely to have an ethical crisis over it. I'll take a full on Sanders progressive over any Republican these days.
Hillary is a fantastic government worker, policy nerd, etc. I wish the Presidency wasn’t such a popularity contest because she’s the kind of person that can get things done. Same really goes for Kerry. Both fantastic Secretary of States.
Remember when Gore ran and he couldnt find any way that he and Bush were different? And how his wife was a christofascist who led a censorship campaign?
That was great.
Remember when fuck off?
Hillary?....is that you?....
Putin? Don't you usually get your poorly paid troll army to do this, or have you sent them all to die in Ukraine?
After falling in line, we are always ignored when they get into power
When you bring with you almost no votes or support, then what do you expect?
So the groups that vote reliably for the Dems should get no attention, but the Left should get to dictate policy when it can't bring up any support?
That's the most liberal thinking I've ever heard..... waaaaa, give me attention, even though I won't lift a finger to support you!
All this is incorrect. Sanders votes converted to establishment votes 80-90%, both rounds. Despite a party that pulled dirty tricks both times to undermine the progressive candidates.
Also you don't get your agenda based on "but I voted for you" that's not how power works. You get your agenda based on "do it or I won't vote for you"
In both, 2016 and 2020, the progressive vote was recieved, and the progressive voice was promptly discarded.
They're right to be jaded AND they should still vote blue. Both of those things are true.
You need to make up your mind. Either progressives aren't bringing enough votes to care about, or you need their votes to win. You can't have it both ways.
If you need their votes to win, you better start addressing their issues. If you don't, then stop blaming them for your losses.
Democrats have won plenty of elections with little support from the left already.
But when elections are decided by a few percentage points, every vote counts. And if the left can be bothered to put down the bong and get off the couch long enough to go vote, it can be enough to win again Republicans in tight races. But the Left never represwnts a majority of Democratic votes. But it sure seems like liberals want to hold their votes hostage until Democrats give them a disproportionate amount of attention. You know what that's called? It's called entitlement.
Expecting progressives to vote for you while at the same time insulting them? Entitlement indeed.
It is hilarious that you think that is insulting.
I'm confused, doesn't what you're saying apply just as much, if not more, to Democrats that some of the progressives reluctantly do end up supporting and voting for despite knowing from their explicit policies and if a career politician, voting record, that they'll barely represent them? What do those longstanding Democrats expect when they continue to betray, or clumsily compromise away, those positions or policies that more progressive demographics voted them in to office hoping they might defend, or at a minimum compromise on in a way that is in fact progressive and beneficial to folks?
On that last point, you may argue they do that, but I'd argue that those cases are rare, and instead they more often compromise in such a way as to either hand more over to their opposition, or make moves that are more of a temporary provision that may be cast aside with the next majority and/or administration.
Laughs in railroad workers
The railroad workers that got what they were demanding in the end?
Oh hey what about this? What about if democrats did their goddamn job when they have the chance? What about that?
Stop blaming us for what the Booner conservative Democrats do.
Elsewhere there is an absolute fapshow happening because the twice-failed Pelosi is RUNNING FOR HER 19TH FUCKING TERM. Nobody there recognizes ANY of her utter failures or her very elitist attacks on progressive freshmen.
As a Californian and with regards to Pelosi that blame is on us--the voters. Incumbents with mediocre records can still win reelection on name recognition alone. Getting progressive challengers in California isn't hard. But getting progressives that can build their brand and base to a competitive size to match incumbents, while surviving the mudslide of bad press from establishment outlets? That's hard.
Hell, my home town despised the previous mayor. Still won his reelection in 2016 by nearly 2/3^rds^ despite a progressive challenger who has been active in city politics and community outreach for over a decade. Had to wait until he termed out in 2020 before we could get the current progressive mayor in office.
Pelosi is so entrenched that she doesnt even bother to recognize challengers. That to me justifies charges of elitism and corruption.
Or... Maybe your perception of political candidates' popularity is only what you want to believe.
Unfathomable that others support who you do not?
Not really, we're dealing with a city that slides between 15~23% voter turn out with a bias towards older voters who previously leaned center/center right. So even if 4 in 10 of the total population dislikes the incumbent, the odds were still in their favor due to self selection and name recognition. For the challenger to get over 30% on the first try shows our previous mayor was already experiencing dissatisfaction from swing voters.
At least that's how it was in 2016, as of 2022 we now have a progressive super majority on city council plus the mayor.
Pelosi has been phenomenal for Democrats and Progressives both. You just hate her because she's old and you're probably in the "it's not a phase, mom!" age range.