• evenglow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    They won’t. Progressives need to motivate voters to have the old guard outvoted. Just need to give them a reason to show up.

    • ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Progressives are already motivated to vote them out. I think awareness of socialist candidates will work as long as Israel doesn’t post another goddam Hilary Clinton somewhere.

      • evenglow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I wasn’t talking about progressive voters and if progressive voters had the votes Republicans wouldn’t be in control.

        • almost_genocide@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Hey look it’s a liberal trying to deflect blame away from the kinds of people who show up to the primaries to vote for genocide supporting, strike blocking trash like Joe Biden.

        • stringere@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think there’s a lot of progressive voters don’t know they are except for the actual voting part, until they see a progressive candidate talking about the issues that matter to them and have a chance to vote for that.

  • TimboSlice@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), however, has been among the most dismissive about these recent victories, warning of the rise of the “dirtbag left” within the party. He told Fox News on Saturday that it signifies a growing shift for the party.

    • Stormy@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The republican George Santos?

      Maybe you mean cuelar from Texas? He’s a san antonio rep that was in trouble for fraud and was let off by trump and now votes with them on their bs.

      • nosuchanon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Doesn’t matter if they are Republican or Democrat. Both sides are for the most part captured by corporate interests.

        • Default Username@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Hence the entire new guard of the Democratic party not taking corporate PAC money, and the entire purpose of this post.

          Also, are we really still playing the “both sides” game in $CURRENTYEAR, where one side is openly fascist?

            • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              But there still is a difference. Show me where the Democrats have someone like Bannon or Steve Miller or the demons that crafted Project 2025…or hell, even Donvict himself, who has already enriched himself to the tune of billions.

              • almost_genocide@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Hey look it’s another person trying to use the horrifying behavior of Republicans to hand wave away Democratic politicians supporting genocide.

              • nosuchanon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Sure. I’ll admit there is no Steve Banon or Steven Miller or Dick Cheney.

                There is still AIPAC and other think tanks. Democrats just manage decay for the most part while getting a corporate donation.

            • Default Username@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              And how are we going go change campaign finance laws until we elect politicians who don’t take corporate money?

              This isn’t a chicken and egg problem. There is a very clear starting point.

    • Suru@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Wasn’t he a republican? And also a convicted felon.

      I don’t think he has anything to do with the old or new guard in the democratic party, it seems like you’re just trying to argue in bad faith.

      • nosuchanon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I am making the argument that just because someone is younger than the current politicians doesn’t meant they are better.

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Could not agree more. It has become highly fashionable to start parroting a bunch of generational warfare nonsense.

          People like Charlie Kirk and the groypers are definitely not old people. People in the broverse are clearly trying to indoctrinate young men into a lot of patent nonsense, many of these “influencers” are not old people, either.

          People need to be judged on their merits, not the number of times they’ve been around the sun (beyond a certain threshold of being old enough to be running for office).

          • mister_flibble@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Tbf I think there’s a degree of correlation vs causation at play here. Career politicians who have been in office for literal decades are more likely to be out of touch with how the average person actually lives and newcomers are likely to skew younger.

            What we need is fresh blood. The age of the actual politicians is more just a natural consequence of that than the goal.