The Pennsylvania Democrat recalled his time serving as a Hillary Clinton surrogate in 2016, even after he supported Bernie Sanders in the primary.

      • Pectin8747@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        We need a voting system that eliminates the spoiler effect and allows for showing intensity of preference.

        RCV does neither but STAR voting does both

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      He specifically said “get behind the policies of Joe Biden”. If it’s just voting I’m with Fetterman, but you don’t need to recalibrate your policy supports because anything less than full agreement is treason.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure, and if it’s just voting and saying “voting for Biden is important”, then great, we’re good. Biden is obviously better than any Republican and Republicans not having power is important. But what that doesn’t mean is tabling advocacy for progressive stuff because it’s not what he’s doing or pretending bad policies just didn’t happen.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, as long as it’s put in context. Too many young people are emphasizing the second part of what you said over the first part.

      • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I like Fetterman, but I don’t think he’s the sharpest tool in the shed. Nuance is likely not his strong suit.

    • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like this is the new boogie man for the DNC. My close circle of friends all don’t like Joe Biden, all voted for Bernie in the primary against Hilary. Still showed up to vote for both her and Biden.

      There’s plenty of people who didn’t show up for Biden and Hilary that have similar views and I don’t think it’s as much malicious as it is apathetic. They don’t do enough to give them a reason to show up. They don’t “energize the base” well enough. The Democrats need to get people excited for their policies somehow.

      • ALostInquirer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Democrats need to get people excited for their policies somehow.

        Wouldn’t a good way to do that be to have compelling policies? Off the top of my head I’d think putting abortion protections/rights into explicit law would be a start. Frankly anything that is currently only legal on the basis of supreme court decisions also seems ripe for putting into legislative policy pushes to make into explicit legal protections, rather than relying on some decision that may be overturned by an arguably compromised court.

        In that vein, expanding protections to the LGBT+ community would be another good piece to their policies. Also, on a larger note, more explicit and enthusiastic support of active unionization efforts that have been happening across different business sectors.

        However, even beyond these, some that would apply more broadly might be policies to address housing and rent costs, as these affect basically everyone and anyone. Policies seeking to address housing/rent, education, and healthcare costs would altogether, I think, speak to a wider swath of the public than strictly focusing on the aforementioned concerns, but would also include them, e.g. combating redlining, undermining of public education, denial of medical services to pregnant women & trans people, etc.

        I’ll admit, maybe they have been pushing for some different parts of these (I’m aware of the Biden administration sort of trying to address college debt and getting screwed by the courts), but by and large I don’t think I’ve seen a clear set of policies by the Democratic party of the United States to be excited for. Far more of it has appeared rather watered down and more along the lines of, “Well, we’re not the Republicans at least!” instead of enthusiastically standing for something more constructive.

        • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not against any of those policy points you listed. But none of them would get me nearly as excited as them actually following through on raising taxes on the wealthy. They haven’t even really attempted that in decades. It’s been all cuts by the Republicans with no action from the Democrats. Making priority one rolling back the tax bill passed under Trump which lowered taxes on the wealthy and raised them on the middle class would of made me excited to vote for Biden again.

          To me, this is supposed to be the main difference between the two parties and how they run the country. Social issues are important, but I’m sick of the media and politicians ignoring fiscal/tax policy. Biden throws out a soundbite about taxing the rich and being pro labor every once and a while, but makes zero action that way.

          • ALostInquirer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Social issues are important, but I’m sick of the media and politicians ignoring fiscal/tax policy. Biden throws out a soundbite about taxing the rich and being pro labor every once and a while, but makes zero action that way.

            Fwiw that’s why I included the parts regarding policies addressing various costs (housing/rent, education, healthcare).

            Ideally taxing the rich would lead to actions addressing those, but if we’re realistic, the odds are just as likely for those tax revenues to go to subsidizing some other businesses, and the military, with a depressingly low amount allocated towards public domestic concerns like helping provide shelter, education, and healthcare. At least, the odds are likely they’ll go that way if not coupled with policies of using the tax revenues towards domestic efforts.

      • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It has nothing to do with energizing the base when we can see they lure voters to the polls then never deliver. The issues the poor and middle class are facing now are the same issues we’ve been facing for decades, and they never get addressed.

        Like James Baldwin said, ‘I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do.’

        • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They could energize the base, by actually doing something they want pretty easily. Legalize pot, raise taxes on the wealthy, codify abortion/roe vs Wade into law… like anything people actually care about.

            • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Things the Republicans might also do and isn’t a good thing to run on for 1,000 Pat. Didn’t Bush pass some decent prescription drug bill…

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        All the areas that went hard Blue after voting for Trump in 2016 seem to argue otherwise. Lots of people came out of the woodwork that either voted for Trump or didn’t vote at all.

        • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          What areas did Trump carry in 16 that then went “hard blue” (I guess that’s dependent upon your definition of hard, but let’s say, breaking for Biden by 10+ points) in 20?

          No doubt there were places that flipped, but I doubt too many flipped “hard”.

          2020 was decided by three groups:

          1. Moderate Republicans repulsed by what they’d seen through 4 years of trump.

          2. Democrats and moderates who were put off specifically by having Clinton on the ballot in 16 and didn’t vote.

          3. Independents who underestimated how bad Trump would be and voted for him to “shake things up” over Clinton who was the picture of Establishment Politics.

          In 2020 I think you also had the effect of complacency among some of Trump’s far right base. Many of them hadn’t voted for years, if ever, until 2016 and likely didn’t realize the perfect storm that had to happen for him to win.

          Meanwhile in 20, defeating Trump basically required two things: don’t be Trump, and don’t be someone lots of people hate.

          Nobody likes Biden, but nobody really hates him either. That’s how he won the primaries and it’s how he won the general.

          And if 2020 is a rematch, it’s how I think he’ll win again. Biden’s biggest strength is what he’s not.

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m thinking of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania who flipped back Blue for Biden, but have also flipped other seats that have been long held by Republicans. The PA house flipped, as well as a seat in the Senate in the US Congress. Democrats held on to the governorship of PA for the first time since 1963. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court also flipped for the first time in nearly two decades. I don’t know how many point they won by, but there is a clear direction the states are both going that extends beyond just Trump.

              • phillaholic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not sure they comment was meant for me, but I agree. People that still say they are independent either aren’t paying close attention or just don’t want to label themselves. Some just love to complain and not take any responsibility for the consequences of their own voting.

      • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        For the most part yes. However, I think the DNC has a real problem being disingenuous and acting like every single person to the left of trump owes them their vote. Give people a reason to vote for you. Not everyone who votes Democrat in one election identifies as a party member who is going to show up for you every election.

        This whole talking to people like naughty school children if they don’t vote for you attitude isn’t helping anyone. Hilary ran her entire campaign on that message. It got us 4 years of orange man.

    • randon31415@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would say “Then why would they be considered progressive?” but then I remember Tankies exist.