- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics@lemmy.world
Time to break free of traditional political ideological labeling and divisions. Time to abandon old, divisive sociopolitical labels like “liberal” and “conservative”.
A new political party based on a vastly, commonly held virtures lends itself to embrace over 66% of Americans, and it clearly embraces progressive principled thinking. In the most ideal American sense of unity, a political party should not be able to be defined or placed as “to the left” or “to the right” of where the Democratic or Republican parties currently are. Just let it exist organically based on present-day principled thinking. The American Progressive Majority.
Originally Posted By u/Atlanticbboy At 2025-03-23 04:38:18 AM | Source
Then why didn’t they fucking vote for it?
Because people don’t vote on policy, they vote on personality and vibes. It’s how it’s always been. This list of policies is (mostly) just a copypasta of the Democratic platform. But people have never voted that way. The Democrats put forth the crypt keeper, then replaced him with one of the most boring public speakers to come out of the Democratic Party in a generation. And they were running against someone who is a horrific fascist, yes, but also has stage presences and charisma and knows how to play to an audience. As much as he’s one of the worst people on the planet, Trump knows how to make himself entertaining to watch.
That’s what drives votes for politically disengaged people who don’t pay attention to politics until the middle of October every 4 years. They listen to who is more entertaining and pretend like that candidate is telling them what they want to hear, regardless of whether or not he is.
Not in this universe
Either this poll is wrong or people just didn’t vote hard enough. I hope it’s the latter
The data in the poll is correct, but people don’t vote on policy. The problem is that OP is framing voters as hyper rational people who sit down to form a long list of their policy preferences, then examine each candidate and select the one that best aligns with themself.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, votes like that, and they never have. They look at the candidates and pick the one that’s more entertaining/has better vibes, then justify their support by either changing or disregarding their personal policy preferences, or (more often) convincing themself that the candidate supports whatever they support, regardless of the candidate’s stated positions.
Lol I do. Every time I vote I look up each candidate to see what they’re about.
You think you do… And it probably contributes heavily to your decision making, but you’re still human, and your subconscious does influence you on the other factors.
Imma press ‘x’ to doubt…
Because none of this was an option. Genocide Joe didn’t do shit about any of this and kamalacaust promised the exact same thing.
So instead the better choice was to vote for or tacitly support by not voting against, the enthusiastic genocide proponent?
If you live in a first past the post system it makes sense to vote for harm reduction.
If you are fortunate enough to live in a proportional representation system there is no reason to compromise.
But they didn’t vote for either of the enthusiastic genocide proponents
Imagine genuinely thinking like this and not being able to see the difference here.
It’s like being an edgy 14 year old. Either too young to feel the difference between such policies or too privileged to notice the difference.