When they lose it needs to be cause they were not left enough they need to lose

This idea that you can punish the DNC by having them lose, is a foot gun.

They are 100% happy with that and it absolutely would not cause them to shift even a centimeter left. If anything, it will shift them right.

The DNC wants to please their corporate donors, and only wants to win half the time.

You want to punish them? Replace them slowly using primaries, state and local politics.

Anything else is shooting yourself in the foot by misunderstanding the incentive structures.

I’m sorry but it is naive to think that misinformed voters will learn the right lesson and vote blue no matter who.

I never said I thought they would. I said its the closest to possible way out.

Nothing is is remotely plausible.

It is more practical to ask for better candidates.

No it is not, because the people you are asking do not care about you.

I think many people in the lemmyverse struggle to deal with what they feel like are conflicting ideas, where they feel like they can’t acknowledge that their relationship with the DNC is adversarial, while also acknowledging that the Democrats are the only party of the 2 parties in a system that only supports 2 major parties that can be leveraged to pull the country towards their objectives.

Better candidates have to be voted in over time, and just as I said, you have to slowly shift the party through primaries and local and state politics.

This requires a multifaceted approach. The DNC will not magically wake up tomorrow and hear your pleas. They will not suddenly support your sweetheart candidate.

They understand and largely like the flipping back and forth so that they can please their donors by allowing the country to continue drifting right, while appeasing to voters by offering to undo some of the harm caused by the republicans during the flip flopping.

Asking them won’t work, because it fundamentally misunderstands their incentives and goals as an organization steering the Democratic party.

I think significant progress could be seen if they could win 4 times in a row with at least one senate super majority and house simple majority stretch near the end.

This is partially why the world is so fucked. People who care, often utterly refuse to be pragmatic, and expect change to always be sweeping, and happen in an instant.

This is what is responsible for the US getting to where it is. They repeatedly allow democrats to lose, and therefore pull the same cycle of losing, having everyone see how much worse republicans are, and then having the democrats walk back some of the damage the republicans did.

People are so naive and angsty, they feel they need to punish the democrats for not doing what they’d like, and only end up punishing themselves, over and over and over again.

The obvious, only pragmatic way to look at this, is that you need them to keep winning so that they cannot backslide, and then you need to use primaries and state and local politics to actually shift them leftward.

Literally nothing else is practical or will work, but people on this site would rather rant about issues than fix them.

At this rate, future historians might have to be very far into the future, and have to rely on very scare evidence of past crimes.

Yes they can, just as so many believed Harris would win because their algorithm provided them a reality where that was a certainty.

Not many believed she was going to win near election time, so Im not really sure what you’re talking about. Many companies clearly started to pivot. Of course some believed one way or another but “believed” is doing heavy lifting there to imply iron clad irrational belief as oppsoed to simply thinking something is more likely than something else.

Its also a complete distraction from the point as you give no further reasoning for saying that they can, and just appear to try to shoehorn in a “both sides” message where it doesn’t even make sense.

What’s dumb is to expect people to vote Democrat when the cost of living rose so sharply under Biden

This is delusional thinking. Its like thinking the president directly controls the price of oil. Costs were rising in many places. People must be evaluated via what they do vs the baseline.

and his handpicked successor said publicly she wouldn’t do anything to change it.

This also isnt true at all. Its basically conservative/conservative adjacent (aka reddit “”“communists”“” whose communism purely consists of supporting the worst availible options because they don’t have their idealist option) talking points pretending she didn’t have any policies, when she did in fact have a lot of them.

Nah to any of this. His rhetoric was clear. Birthirism, build a wall, eat the dogs, sending their rapists, black jobs.

Especially for his second term, not a soul could possibly believe he would bring about positive change economically.

Its also extremely dumb for the next to nobody who voted for him for not bigotry to think choosing the worse option would somehow make things better as opposed to participating in primaries more.

You think hes writing out all of their detailed plans, legislation or agendas?

He matches their hateful energy.

They believe he will hurt the right people (to them); marginalized people.

They are largely happy that he is, and many are completely willing to accept massive sacrifice to get this.

What would happen? hes already basically doing it. The answer is stooges are put in their place.

There aren’t easy solutions, and the solutions most people throw up are like “What if the people I think don’t care suddenly started caring”.

Removed by mod

There is at least one Robo vac that does not rely on the cloud, and personally I can’t imagine feeling comfortable with a robovac being cloud connected for no reason.

Removed by mod

There are many private businesses in China, probably most are.

Many other countries you would not call socialist also have the government owning critical industries/companies (like outside of NA, most governments own their state resource extraction businesses). The typical things we discount as not being socialist but that actually are such as mail etc also count.

You are basically arbitrarily choosing when to call something socialist vs not socialist by choosing to call china, a booming capitalist state with tons of humanitarian harms, just as any other booming (or used to be booming) capitalist state that of course also has socialist elements.

The rational person would instead focus on what else should be socialized because gradual progress is the only rational route. Irrational people spout off expecting bold revolutions where other people die horrifically so their idealist perspectives can be satiated, which more than likely would end up falling further towards the other direction.

History exists

Something you mention repeatedly as a way to add false credibility to your ridiculous stances, but also something which you can only draw vague, poorly correlated to examples with.

I’m starting to feel like Im arguing with an LLM with talking points designed to aggravate and talk me into a circle.

as does the PRC, as do other socialist states.

The capitalist country with slightly more social sytems?

At this point this is a joke.

Historically, your method of trying to work within a system designed not to change in order to help ease people into socialism never works.

Historically there is no historically and you continue to make vague statements that don’t actually call for any positive actions and instead call for apathy.

my brother in christ, we are not discouraging you from voting. we are trying to show you it doesn’t work.

At this level of self contradiction, I can only conclude you are either trolling or arguing just to argue. Saying that something does not work is discouraging someone from doing said thing.

Its also part of everything I previously discussed, pointing out that you think everything has to be a whole solution in and of itself, and that idea is naive, because nothing ever will be.

we have experience with people like mamdani outside the us that you just refuse to accept.

This is utterly irrelevant as you’ve failed to acknoledge me already addressing this point with pointing out just because roadblocks eventually exist doesnt mean you just stop and roll over/dismiss this as not being a part of the solution.

All of this comes from the naive notion that there is just 1 big button that needs pressing before everything magically falls into place.

Its many little buttons, slow changes over time, and people like you, not fighting that tooth and nail, somehow with righteous indignation against anyone pragmatic enough to understand why that is wrong.

i literally cannot be clearer than i am being.

That is because you have little of substance to actually say but wish that you did, so all you can do is use vague rhetoric to dismiss points you can’t argue against.

I don’t think further conversation on this chain will be productive. Spouting irrelevant rhetoric with strenuous relations while completely neglecting any of the points I’ve made can only go so far.

Also, to call me a contrarian, while being unable to acknowledge that you have a severe marketing issue I think is a great microcosm of the attitudes here.

You feel that being angry and isolated enough will somehow spread change, forgetting that you’re probably in the sub 1% in terms of groups of people, and haven’t made a dent into the other 99%

This type of purposefully too vague to be worth while conversation is just irksome.

The idea that your votes don’t matter, despite billionaires bending over backwards to encourage exactly that type of opinion, so that people stop using all of the levers they have (especially given how easy this one is to pull) is ridiculously counterproductive.

Organizing with your fellow workers sounds like a great idea, except that you can’t do so effectively if the ballot box you want to ignore the importance of works to effectively remove your protections and help the ownership class press you.

Even if you think its little oppression vs big oppression, that difference absolutely matters, especially given the cost the benefit analysis which makes voting crazily valuable for literally just showing up and casting a vote every few months.

you will find that demsocs like mamdani are relatively common throughout the world outside the US. how it usually goes for us is he will eventually either hit a wall or be forced to by the system.

This right here also lacks significant nuance. Its once again based on some vague idea that if a solution isnt everything, its nothing. You ever wonder what would happen if there were enough Mamdanis out there?

Mamdani is far better than his opposition, but his policies aren’t gonna bring socialism.

See, this is exactly the type of thing that is wrong with the general attitudes of people on this website.

Moaning, calling the majority of people fascists for having pragmatic plans, joking about revolution plans youll never attempt, much less succeed at all are severe forms of idealism.

You will literally never magically go to sleep one day in capitalist land, and then wake up in socialist land. That just is not how it works.

All the people who think they remember reading some historical account where that happened clearly missed a lot of information, because no societal change like that happens that quickly. Even for changes that appear quick, what is often missed are the huge amounts of smaller events that built up to those events, and the stepping stones.

Everyone on this site seems to utterly refuse to acknowledge this and seems to want to lambaste any idea that deals with the reality that socialist rome cannot be built in a day.

Anything that isn’t a full measure to them, might as well literally be the same thing as trump, and that’s just absurdly counter productive and naive.

Mamdani is bringing socialism, but slightly, and with digestible measures which should change public opinion. It’s not all or nothing. Small change is good change too.

Others should do so as well. In so doing people warm up to an idea rather than the fringiest, cringiest people thinking that shrieking at the general public will magically lead them to change their opinions and accept massive differences immediately.

I agree it’s better to support him than not because I don’t want people to suffer under worse politicians,

In case it was purposeful, I want to add that it should be “not only because”, because, and this is another problem I have with many of attitudes here, right now matters! People who are alive and living right now matter! Their lives and shared experiences matter!

It’s absolutely not ok to throw away their lives for some idealistic hail mary you (general you) think will save the world, particularly when doing so wouldn’t even work.

but we should use this opportunity to organize and demand more, not less.

I am cautious about using the word demand, because it implies that you have leverage in a way I think many lemmy users think they have leverage, but they absolutely do not.

I think too many lemmy users think that protest voting does anything other than setting them back, not realizing that 2 party systems love the rocking back and forth where one party can just outright benefit the rich, and the other can campaign on cutting some of those changes back. Any allowance for this hurts the cause.

Instead, the only areas they have leverage are in electing people like Mamdani through primaries, local and state politics. They can apply leverage by changing what the average member of the party closest to their views looks like to start a progressive shift.

Whether Mamdani achieves his goals or not, people won’t be able to maintain any gains without an organized working class.

I think they will, because there is something to be said for changing the uncaring persons passive opinion on what has been marketed as the devil for too long. The average person notices that NYC does better with Mamdani, and the next time some big media source rages on about how socialism will ruin us all, they think “meh, thats probably not true”.

they have, insistently.

Where?

A few people trying to try something doesnt mean they succeeded at trying said things.

I mean, here we are on lemmy where people insist on nonsensical revolutions and have hated the idea of working to change parties; the only pragmatic solution, for ever.

look into the history of leftist movements, and don’t be an asshole.

Calling me an asshole implicitly, after asking me to make your argument for you is actual asshole behaviour.