649
Democrats Shocked By Success Of Left-Wing Candidate Offering Left-Wing Policies To Left-Wing Voters
(www.betootaadvocate.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
649 points (98.8% liked)
Progressive Politics
2848 readers
1430 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Jesus fucking christ, where my crew at?
This is our moment to fucking run it in the faces of the idiots telling us we needed to have candidates with barely left of center politics in this country.
People who have told you you need to accept less from candidates because abwd are the toxic bane that handed us Trump. You can't win elections on being a diet piece of shit; you actually have to stand for some thing.
Earlier today this same article was crossposted from ML to Not The Onion, where many people pointed out it's an opinion hit piece that makes the claim that Democrats reacted with shock or disbelief with the following citations and evidence: their feelings. It's less than a nothing burger, the article genuinely lies to your face. You're not going to make friends doing that.
what does abwd mean?
ABWD refers to "Any Blue Will Do", which is a slogan, ideology, and voting strategy associated with what is now collectively known as "Blue MAGA".
The charitable version of their argument is that we need to just support every D, no matter what. The problem that ABWD creates is two fold. The first problem, is that in effect, the policy works against its self as electoral strategy. It second problem is that it also works against itself as governing strategy. I'm going to refer to these as "anti-strategies" because I think its important to point out that they are thought about and employed as if they are in-fact strategies that could win an election. They make you feel like a smart person, and are regularly used as a cudgel against other approaches, but they are self-defeating: an anti-strategy hurts you, not helps you.
This clip of Whoopi Goldberg saying she would vote for Joe Biden even if he was pooping his pants on stage highlights:
So the issue that ABWD creates in this context is that, even though Whoopi here is clear that she would vote for a candidate so aged that they shit themselves on stage, American voters wont. And this problem is rampant across Democratic primaries. We're constantly getting candidates forced into elections through AIPAC, the DCCC, directly from the DNC, who aren't electable within the Democratic base, for whatever reason. Here, Whoopi has effectively lowered the bar to the floor. And the problem is, that while a pants-shitter might be fine for Whoopi, its not fine for literally everyone else. By insisting on this anti-strategy, that we had to support Biden as the candidate when it was clear he was completely incapable of governing, let alone winning the election (even when Trump was as unpopular as he was), this insistence was basically an instance we lose the election. Its an important historical footnote that Blue MAGA/ ABWD did win the ideological fight that summer. And we lost the 2024 election as a result.
So the second issue with ABWD/ Blue MAGA is that we end up with Blue Dogs, or Democrats that are basically worthless for progressing any Democratic legislative or governance priorities. Effectively, ABWD is used to put conservative, basically Republican Democrats into safe blue districts, which they might hold for decades. A classic example of this was AOC versus Crowley, where Crowley held the house seat responsible for Queens, NY, one of the most progressive house district populations there is. And he REGULARLY defeated, shut down any kind of progressive legislation. There are many, many others, for example, Ed Case, House District 1, Honolulu HI, who voted to censure Al Greene. ABWD/ Blue MAGA results in bad Democrats getting into office and holding space which would otherwise be occupied by more reliable, more progressive Democrats. When you go to actually get get anything done, ABWD defeats your ability to govern.
Do you really think that Biden's "non governing" was worse than Drumphs autocratic "governing"? I think that if the stakes were less, then your approach may have merit. But right now, we're talking Drumph, and literally anything is better than what he offers.
Whataboutism.
The point is that ultra zionist neocon warmonger that is most Republican of anyone in DNC, while successful in replacing Trump in 2020, also kept him out of jail so he could run again, as the best candidate the DNC could hope for, until Oct 7th, when Israel first rule over America made DNC intentionally elect Trump as best Israel friend to "finish the job". The only important election platform of "defeat Trump" even if it motivates us to vote that way, is a very low bar, that doesn't turn into any progress or change.
I agree that not jailing Drumpf for life was a major failure. I do blame Merrick Garland for that, primarily, and Biden by extension as his boss. But that doesn't change a thing about TODAY'S situation, nor the importance of removing him again.
Stop living in the past. It's not really relevant, especially for those that don't learn.
Theoretically not facing Trump in 2028. DNC could nominate John Fetterman if pattern continues. AOC if she disavows Israel first rule, and proxy war on Russia could result in Mitt Romney as GOP candidate. instead of Rubio or Vance.
See what you are doing there? How you are trying to reframe the point into something it isn't?
The question if djt or Joe Biden being better is a non issue, because the election wasn't actually between two deeply unpopular candidates: it was between voting and not voting, and not voting won by a landslide.
If you don't change your understanding into these terms you'll never actually be able to push down facsism, because, as demonstrated, being a lessor evil simply isn't good enough. It's not a negotiation. There is no wiggle room. You fail to present a better option, and you are intentionally trying to lose.
I'll try to work it out, as people are currently dying in El Salvadorean concentration camps, of pregancy difficulties, and due to measles and any other medical denialism. As allies are betrayed to generational enemies, and Drumpf flirts with WW3. As the world, but especially the US economy crashes. As millions of people lose their jobs. I'll say it again for those who have their heads up their own asses. Drumpf must lose FIRST to potentially save the world. It's possible that it's already too late and that there will not be another election. The stakes can't be much higher. THEN fix your stupid electoral system.
You want the electorate to be different than it is. You want them to have seen the existential threat which Trump was and is. You want them to be engaged and committed to showing up even when there is nothing on the ballot for them. I wish that voters were better than they are too.
But this is reality and we don't get to base our strategies on how we wish things are. We have to base them on how they actually are. We can't run campaigns for the voters we wished we have access to, we have to base the campaigns on the voters we actually have access to.
You want the electorate to be different than it is; but it isn't. If you approach predicates the electorate be different than they are, you will lose.
You either meet the voters where they are at or you are making a conscious choice to lose.
Well, I'd differentiate between primary and general election. It's definitely time to overthrow the democratic establishment, and do the same as AOC or now Mamdani. Third parties won't have a chance, but overtaking the Democrats (like the tea party) is possible.
Nevertheless, in the general election, you should definitely vote against fascism, even if the Democratic candidate is awful as well.
This is myopia. Every election is the most important election of your lifetime. But it's suicidal to only consider one election at time. Consider two different options:
Option 1: Vote blue no matter who
Election 1: establishment pushes a corporatist through the primary, Dem voters reluctantly vote blue no matter who, corporatist loses by small margin to the Republican candidate.
Election 2: corporatist gets nomination, Dems vote blue no matter who, candidate slightly loses to Republicans.
Election 3: corporatist gets nomination, Dems vote blue no matter who, candidate slightly loses to Republicans.
Election 4: corporatist gets nomination, Dems vote blue no matter who, candidate slightly loses to Republicans.
Election 5: corporatist gets nomination, Dems vote blue no matter who, candidate slightly loses to Republicans.
Option 2: Demand better from Democratic candidates.
Election 1: establishment pushes a corporatist through the primary, Dem voters refuse to vote blue no matter who, corporatist loses in a blow out election.
Election 2: corporatist candidate gets no traction. Dems vote in a decent candidate that can inspire people. Dems win general election.
Election 3: decent candidate has edge from the beginning. Dems win general election.
Election 4: decent candidate has edge from the beginning. Dems win general election.
Election 5: decent candidate has edge from the beginning. Dems win general election.
So, like, you have to start hearing this: If you (or any Democrats) continue to approach elections with this mental framework, you will lose elections. What you are saying; what you are thinking: it directly contributed to Democrats losing in 2024. Not adjacently, not tangentially: directly.
What you are engaging in is an anti-strategy. You feel like you are doing the smart thing by expressing it, but actually, this tactic when applied at scale, gives candidates the permission structure to be worse. It gives them the space to hold onto policies that preclude them from being electable. What you are doing is the exact point I'm railing against, because its been demonstrated now, over and over again, to lose elections.
The election isn't about you or me: its about the candidate and the electorate. And the only force we wield in that dynamic is our vote. We need candidates to understand that they do NOT have our votes, not in a primary, not in a general, if they don't move to our policy positions. If they think that they've got your vote and don't need to work for it, they won't and don't.
And we don't need to argue about this. We've run both the positive and negative sides of this experiment so many times, its basically solved. Every election since 1996, on both the left and the right, has been won by the candidate who moves to where their side of the electorate is at. When you give your leverage away for free, you give the candidate permission to not change their position and this loses the election.
ABWD is what you are expressing, and by doing so, you are setting things up for failure.
The massive problem a lot of Americans are struggling with is that they only have two choices, and one vote. I think there would be massive pressure on terrible Democrat candidates if voters felt like they could vote for who they really want to and keep these terrible candidates as a reluctant backup. We have the system we have now and have to work within it, but God damn I am so hungry for a instant runoff voting system.
Part of working with the system we have now is to not myopically focusing on just the election in front of you. Short term thinking and voting blue no matter who is what got us to where we are today.
They have two choices in each election, but if they look at mid and long term, they have more than two choices because how they vote (or refuse to) today influences who gets put forward next time around.
The US Elections aren't a Trolley Problem from Philosophy (because: most effects of the choice can be undone, they're a cyclical choice rather than one-off, you don't really know for sure what each choice gets you because politicians lie, they're not an individual choice) they're more like a Cyclical Ultimatum Game from Game Theory between the party of the political side of a voter and the voter, and the party puts forward a candidate with a certain mix of policies and the voter can Accept - and then both the party and the voter get a little closer to getting that mix of policies - or the voter can Reject - and then the party and the voter get a little further from getting that mix of policies.
This being the cyclical version is what matters most here: both sides get to do another run of the game in 4 years time, which is why a Reject on the side which can chose "yay or nay" can make sense as a way of inducing the other size to put forward a candidate with a different mix of policies on the next round.
(The main difference from the actual cyclical Ultimatum Game is that the actual Accept or Reject is the sum of many votes, and both Parties in the US use the inherent difficulty of people in working as a group to get Accepts when they should be getting Rejects)
The American Voting System is fucked up and not really Democratic, yet unlike and actual Power Monopoly, there are still ways to influence the Power Duopoly in the US but they require voters to be Strategical in how they vote rather than only Tactical.
Narrative not allowed. You'll now be inundated with text explaining how just letting the Republicans win is better.
Bruh what do you think the guard dogging of Harris resulted in?
Anyone blue will do…maybe?
Correct.
Blue MAGA is such a stupid fucking term. Anyone who uses it should likely be disregarded.
If Blue MAGA doesn't want to be referred to as such they can change their behavior any time.
It is however extraordinarily fitting:
And that one is from the early days of the use of the term.
tl;dr your image is as bullshit as anyone who says "Blue MAGA". It's a thing you and others are trying to invent. Fuck off with your both sides bullshit.
In this essay, I will discuss why most of the points in that image are bullshit.
First line is tenuous at best. There wasn't outright cheating like ballot stuffing, but there was an absolute brick on the scales. The media calling all the superdelegates before anyone actually voted was bullshit. Nuance is a thing.
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone saying Bernie is a DINO.
Nobody on the left says "fuck democracy". And if they do, they're not neolibs.
Absolutely nobody says only corporate votes should count.
In the end, if you don't ally with most Democrats, our country is doomed. You can turn them more progressive, especially in primaries. But if you abandon the Dems, you might as well be one of those right wing podcaster being paid by Russia.
I get that some people want to threaten them. But threaten them from the left, not from the fucking stupid.
Your "most Democrats" just handed the country to fascists because rather than be critical and demand better than a pants shitting, geriatric, defender of genocide, they decided any blue would do.
And what we just showed you: Your approach to politics doesn't work and ours does. You want to win? Follow us. Stop pretending that forcing through shitty candidates does any other than hand governance to Republicans.
"Join us", like I wasn't out there knocking on doors for Bernie.
Genocide Joe has got to g..
Wait what are we doing again
We're taking a victory lap.
Mamdani is a Democrat party candidate, you're bashing his party and claiming to celebrate his victory? I doubt it.
This ain't your party.