you're just going to end up w a bernie, aoc, omar, etc. situation where they're not given enough control to change anything the democratic party's priorities; but trotted out like show ponys to convince progressives to vote for the democrats anyways.

[–] EmpireInDecay@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

People like Bernie and AOC are not progressive. They're nothing more than sheep dogs for the party to keep people locked in the party with false promises of eventually having a seat at the table. Going back to 1984 Democrats have always had a sheepdog to keep voters herded up like sheep.

People need to get out of the mindset of reform. We plainly seen that reform over the last hundred years does not work. Eugene Debs talked about Democrats trying to reform their party 100 years ago. WEB DuBois talked about Democrats trying to reform their party 60 years ago. They believe that if they change enough cogs within the machine, the machine will operate differently. It's time to scrap the machine

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

thoroughly agreed and that's what i'm getting at; voting for "progressive" democrats won't get us anywhere.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

so why advocate voting for progressive democrats when moderate democrats will not allow any progressive members to control the democrat party?

Because the centrist wing has lost all credibility and we're seeing their power to block progressives waning.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

we’re seeing their power to block progressives waning

do you have any evidence for this?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Mamdani's a good proof of concept. The party brought everything down it could to ratfuck him, before and after the primaries, and failed. We just had a progressive win in New Jersey. Another in Fort Worth.

Decisively in all cases.

That last one shows the centrist "we need to run centrists to win in conservative districts" line to be so much bullshit.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

that is definitely a litmus test for where democratic voters heads are at, but that's also definitely not control of party.

see schumer's mission statement of protecting isreal at all costs to understand where the democratic party leadership's heads are at despite bernie actually having a say in it.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

that is definitely a litmus test for where democratic voters heads are at, but that’s also definitely not control of party.

Not yet, no. But there haven't been a ton of races since trump won and it became undeniable that centrist democrats were both unprepared and unwilling to take on this challenge. The more progressives win, the more influence they can exert on the party.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

The more progressives win, the more influence they can exert on the party.

this has been the entire reasoning behind voting for the "lesser evil" for a majority of the last century and it has ended up with those unprepared and unwilling democrats in charge.

why would it be different now?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

this has been the entire reasoning behind voting for the “lesser evil” for a majority of the last century and it has ended up with those unprepared and unwilling democrats in charge.

Centrists are no longer able to effectively keep progressives from winning.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 hours ago

some progressives have always broken through; that's why we have bernie, aoc, omar, pressley, etc. and those numbers already outmatch the few recent victories that progressives have enjoyed.

to be fair: i hope that you're right, but i doubt it very much as i watch americans start to blame the epstein illuminati on russia.