Coli centrists, what's so great about centrism: come in here and sell us on your political leaning

[LOST IN THE SAUCE]

Because that's what works in local elections most of the time. Maybe the Presidential candidate can be populist. But The 500+ members of Congress don't run National campaigns. Neither do the thousands of locally elected officials.

If you notice, candidates start at either end of the spectrum during the primaries, then move closer to the middle for General Elections. There's a reason for that. Centrists are more electable.

So we're told.

I'm more of the mind that candidates move to the center because of pressure from donors, the media, the establishment, etc. I don't think it makes them more electable to the general public, I think concessions are what is required to receive backing from the establishment. Those might be the same thing to you, but they are very different things to me. I think abandoning your principles in the quest for power makes you less electable in the eyes of the people, actually.

 

[CrimsonTider]

people who think progress is impossible or even a bad thing or an inconvenience
People who do the bidding of the 1 percenters every chance they get
People who always vote for military spending and have ze4ro problem with bloated defence budget and some even masturbate to f35 jet pictures
People who think we need more Dianne feinstens and less Ilhan omar's

anyway that's the point of this thread, for centrist like yourself to define centrism and sell us on its ideals

Who thinks this way?

Progressive’s focus should be winning national and statewide elections not “centrist”

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

The beauty is that it can stand for anything you want it to. Depending on your beliefs and constituency you can dress it up as lean-left or lean-right.

How when it doesn’t stand for anything but maintaining the position of maximum neutrality/centrality?

@Jalether perfectly explains why centrism heavily relies on convincing people that progressive politics don’t work despite there being a history of progressivism in America.

people who think progress is impossible or even a bad thing or an inconvenience
People who do the bidding of the 1 percenters every chance they get
People who always vote for military spending and have ze4ro problem with bloated defence budget and some even masturbate to f35 jet pictures
People who think we need more Dianne feinstens and less Ilhan omar's

anyway that's the point of this thread, for centrist like yourself to define centrism and sell us on its ideals

We need less Ilhan’s too. fukk that haram head ass fake progressive bytch. She’s a huge part of the problem with the cosplaying.

 

[OfTheCross]

So we're told.

I'm more of the mind that candidates move to the center because of pressure from donors, the media, the establishment, etc. I don't think it makes them more electable to the general public, I think concessions are what is required to receive backing from the establishment. Those might be the same thing to you, but they are very different things to me. I think abandoning your principles in the quest for power makes you less electable in the eyes of the people, actually.

You may be correct.

But I want to win.

Unless you've got the backing of the Party and donors you're unlikely to win.

Once you're in office you can vote however you want.

 

[Jalether]

Who thinks this way?

Progressive’s focus should be winning national and statewide elections not “centrist”

who is a centrist and what do y'all believe in.

 

[OfTheCross]

How when it doesn’t stand for anything but maintaining the position of maximum neutrality/centrality?

@Jalether perfectly explains why centrism heavily relies on convincing people that progressive politics don’t work despite there being a history of progressivism in America.



We need less Ilhan’s too. fukk that haram head ass fake progressive bytch. She’s a huge part of the problem with the cosplaying.

shyt isn't that simple locally.

You can want UBI, but you're just 1 rep in Congress or 1 vote in your Commission. Gonna have to compromise.

You can want to cut the defense budget, but you don't want to lose the jobs in your district or city. Gonna have to compromise.

You can be a centrist and a populist. Like I said, that's the beauty of it. We know what the extremes of each party want. Anything other than that is in the middle.

 

[LOST IN THE SAUCE]

You may be correct.

But I want to win.

Unless you've got the backing of the Party and donors you're unlikely to win.

Once you're in office you can vote however you want.

So is it like sports to you? You just trying to be on the winning team? The fukk is the point of winning if it doesn't lead to fixing the issues in this country?

If you elect people who 'vote however they want' and what they want is trash, then what does it matter if they're in office? You're hustling backwards. Candidates never compromise on their principals to win an election and then turn back left. It's usually the opposite, with trash centrists using leftist populism to win elections and then facing right once they get in office.

 

[Jalether]

How when it doesn’t stand for anything but maintaining the position of maximum neutrality/centrality?

@Jalether perfectly explains why centrism heavily relies on convincing people that progressive politics don’t work despite there being a history of progressivism in America.



We need less Ilhan’s too. fukk that haram head ass fake progressive bytch. She’s a huge part of the problem with the cosplaying.

elaborate

 

[OfTheCross]

So is it like sports to you? You just trying to be on the winning team? The fukk is the point of winning if it doesn't lead to fixing the issues in this country?

If you elect people who 'vote however they want' and what they want is trash, then what does it matter if they're in office? You're hustling backwards. Candidates never compromise on their principals to win an election and then turn back left. It's usually the opposite, with trash centrists using leftist populism to win elections and then facing right once they get in office.

Sports? No. Politics is real life, my friend. That's why it's most important to win elections.

I was just pointing out that you can run one way, and govern/legislate another.

So, as an elected official, you're not tied to your donors, etc. You can vote however you'd like.

 

[LOST IN THE SAUCE]

Sports? No. Politics is real life, my friend. That's why it's most important to win elections.

I was just pointing out that you can run one way, and govern/legislate another.

So, as an elected official, you're not tied to your donors, etc. You can vote however you'd like.

So you've been speaking from the perspective of running as a centrist candidate, not as a voter? You're not doing well to shake the idea that you're looking at this shyt like sports.

As a voter, why would you prefer centrism over everything else.

 

[OfTheCross]

So you've been speaking from the perspective of running as a centrist candidate, not as a voter? You're not doing well to shake the idea that you're looking at this shyt like sports.

As a voter, why would you prefer centrism over everything else.

As a voter, I want shyt to get done.

I prefer pragmatism, which ends up looking like centrism, because it actually gets things done.

Take Obamacare, for instance, is it single payer? No. But it's something of value that actually got done.

People on the extremes have to remember that there is a loyal and powerful opposition.

 

[LOST IN THE SAUCE]

As a voter, I want shyt to get done.

I prefer pragmatism, which ends up looking like centrism, because it actually gets things done.

Take Obamacare, for instance, is it single payer? No. But it's something of value that actually got done.

People on the extremes have to remember that there is a loyal and powerful opposition.

I don't consider myself extreme, and I haven't forgotten the looming threat of fascism, although sometimes I wish I could.

It seems to me that it's the gradualist approach that doesn't factor in the 'powerful opposition'. With the Republicans pushing hard towards fascism, incrementalism is just not going to cut it. You say its pragmatism and it gets things done, but currently the ruling party is at a near standstill with not a lot of wiggle room to eke out some positive change, and that is completely due to moderate ideology and their brand of austerity politics. Centrism does not rise to meet the moment.

 

[Jalether]

As a voter, I want shyt to get done.

I prefer pragmatism, which ends up looking like centrism, because it actually gets things done.

Take Obamacare, for instance, is it single payer? No. But it's something of value that actually got done.

People on the extremes have to remember that there is a loyal and powerful opposition.

So what shyt have centrists who make up 99 percent of democrats gotten done?

 

[OfTheCross]

I don't consider myself extreme, and I haven't forgotten the looming threat of fascism, although sometimes I wish I could.

It seems to me that it's the gradualist approach that doesn't factor in the 'powerful opposition'. With the Republicans pushing hard towards fascism, incrementalism is just not going to cut it. You say its pragmatism and it gets things done, but currently the ruling party is at a near standstill with not a lot of wiggle room to eke out some positive change, and that is completely due to moderate ideology and their brand of austerity politics. Centrism does not rise to meet the moment.

If 48 out of 50 Democrats want change, I don't blame the entire party.

And since the 48 can't force through whatever they want, they have to be pragmatic and compromise.

So, it's not so much a gradualist approach. It's moreso, that's all we can get.

This is the reality of the situation.

 

[OfTheCross]

So what shyt have centrists who make up 99 percent of democrats gotten done?

Gun reform, stimulus checks, you quoted me mentioning Obamacare, infrastructure bill, etc.

And all of those major bills have a bunch of smaller laws that are beneficial to green energy and minorities.