• Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Being more progressive than our current representation isn’t hard, and doesn’t make them “progressive.”

    And if progressives don’t move to the flyover states en masse it won’t matter how much they vote.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      And if progressives don’t move to the flyover states en masse it won’t matter how much they vote.

      There are progressives in every state. The margin of victory in swing states is so narrow that every vote counts. And even in non-swing states, there are plenty of races where progressive voters can make a difference. But more importantly, even if a progressive is in a non-swing state they should still vote, because it’s important for Democrats to see that progressives make a sizable portion of the electorate and specifically their voting base across the country.

      Being more progressive than our current representation isn’t hard, and doesn’t make them “progressive.”

      No where in my argument did I say that being more progressive than their representatives make them progressives. Just that the current state of affairs in the United States with its current policies is not representative of the people. Whether that issue is abortion, trans rights, the minimum wage, universal healthcare, or whole host of other issues. The majority is not being represented properly at present on these issues. By assuming that where we are now as a country on these issues is reflective of the people is to miss an incredible opportunity. There is the potential to shift the Overton window to the left and radically change the US for the better. edit: typo