Question about Progressives who think a Trump victory is good for the movement

[GroovyGuru]

I've been seeing stuff online, mostly Kim Iversen if you guys are familiar with her YouTube channel, and even know a few people like my cousin who claim to be progressives and supported Bernie but actually think another 4 years of Trump would be good. I'm sure you guys have seen this stuff before, maybe even talked about it on the forum.

They basically think that by all progressives voting for Biden we would prove to the Dems they don't really need to pander to us and can keep focusing on winning over Republican voters and obeying their donors etc. Kim was saying if Biden wins, mostly by winning over many "never-Trump voters", and the Republicans nominate a regular plain old classic conservative in 2024 then the Dems will continue to move even more to the right to try to win over those voters. Some people like my cousin just want to see 4 more years of Trump so all hell would break lose and America would burn and continue to collapse so the Dems would have no choice but to start listening to progressive demands.

I happen to think progress just happens slowly and honestly it's not like all these boomer scumbags like Biden and Hillary and the rest are gonna be around much longer. I feel that my generation is a different breed, and in 30 years when my generation is in power and I'm around 50 I think America will be a different, and better place. I could be wrong, I don't know really but this kind of seems obvious to me. The fact that a so-called "progressive" really has to sit there and think about whether they should vote for Biden or TRUMP is retarded as shit to me. But hey.

My question is this though: What is a really good counter-argument to people who hold this view? Why are they wrong in thinking 4 more years of Trump is better for the progressive movement than a Biden victory?

[Gidiot]

Anyone arguing this obviously doesn’t have immigrant friends. Biden is a Neo lib but it’ll be almost impossible for him to ignore progressives if we control the three branches which would be very likely after these elections.

if you have four years of trump he might make it illegal  to be a democrat. Or teach leftist views in any type of school. As a someone who likes progressive ideas I want rapid change too! But sometimes you have to realize where you need to be strategic. We need Biden and then when he steps down we will have a better chance, just because Biden wins he’s not going to get a pass this time.

 

obama sadly got a pass mostly because I think people were just happy at the symbolism of a black man in the White House .

 but from my circles people are just as ready fight Bidens ass and make sure that he delivers on climate policy and isn’t as corrupt as trump.

yes I hate that he’s in the pocket of Wall Street, but the Green Party ain’t going to win shit

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Gidiot

[Verdesbird]

im more concern about the next big financial crisis,trump already says a biden's victory will lead the country to a very nasty and big depression,i wonder if the economy will stand still with 4 more years of trump...

[commie]

Hi folks! I'm back for this bit of spectacle so I can't blame you for being into it. But be halfway reasonable: this ain't 1860. Trump or Biden winning or stealing this isn't going to change much. They're not magicians who can whisper to "the economy" or outlaw politics somehow.

23 hours ago, GroovyGuru said:

My question is this though: What is a really good counter-argument to people who hold this view? Why are they wrong in thinking 4 more years of Trump is better for the progressive movement than a Biden victory?

I can think of a shallow as well as a more strategic argument.

The Dems have already lost in 2016 after having antagonized progressives... how is the second time supposed to bring about different results than the first? Dems will simply keep repeating propaganda like a crazy person instead of facing what they've done: Russia, white "working class", shy voters, whatever.

But the real issue with this pseudo-progressive scorched earth strategy is that it relies on a misunderstanding of electoral politics. Voters do not and can not possibly negotiate their support for this or that politician. That's an individualist fantasy no proper leftist would indulge in. You don't get to take or reject a deal during a direct election. You vote once and the reason why you voted (or didn't) isn't recorded.  Whoever wins this election will therefore not be beholden to any group of voters or to any political party for that matter but to billionaires and Congress. So what progressives can do electorally at the Federal level is to elect people willing to bargain hard with the POTUS on their behalf to Congress. The only progressive fights to be had are down the ballot... or rather, down some ballots.

If the Electoral College was more than a formality, you'd have an indirect election where negotiation might have a role but progressives would be also be marginalized in such a setup. In a winner-takes-all election, a minority of voters can only win by suppressing the majority or by taking advantage of a divided opposition. And progressives are so weak they wouldn't even have a chance in a three-way race! You can't fix that by refusing to vote for a candidate you don't like because stronger factions are in a better position to do the same.

Edited September 29, 2020 by commie