If we can't be bothered to vote in the primaries, wjy would anyone believe us that a progressive candidate would somehow lure millions more to vote?
As I know the comments will be, uhhh, fun, I've turned off reply notifications.
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
323 points (81.7% liked)
Political Memes
11231 readers
2633 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've gotten more down votes saying exactly this.
In 2020 Biden won with 81.3 million votes. In 2024 Trump won with 77.3 million votes. All we had to do to avoid the mess we are in is turn out with the same "enthusiasm" we had for Biden in 2020.
It's the job of a politician to generate that enthusiasm.
I would argue that it is the civic duty of a citizen to vote. Enthusiasm is irrelevant.
We simply know that people are more likely to vote when they are enthusiastic. You can either keep telling people "do better" and keep losing, or you can accept human nature and use it to your advantage by running a candidate that people actually want.
People should have been planty enthusiastic to get anyone but Trump as President, but that shows how strong the misinformation machine is.
Personally I've always favored a system like Australia where voting is compulsory and punished with a small fine. That filters out the principled from the merely lazy.
No, it simply shows that the Dem strategy of "putting up a turd that doesn't stink quite as bad as the other one" isn't enough to actually win when it matters.
It's the job of my dentist to encourage responsible dental hygiene. But if I don't brush, it's my teeth that rot.
Sorry, but that logic just doesn't work at the population level.
A large group of people isn't going to change if you keep telling them "do better". You have to work with their natural interests and responses. If a politician manages to motivate people, people will vote for them. If they don't, people won't.
I guess the people's teeth will just all fall out then. Too bad the dentist didn't motivate us to brush enough.
Too bad it's seemingly impossible to get a Democratic candidate who anyone actually wants. But sure, keep telling people it's their fault. Worked wonders in '24!
What, Kamala had the agency to change her stance on Israel, which the Democratic campaign knew was a dealbreaker? Sorry, it's an ironclad law of the universe that's not possible. Guess you have to continue going to the dentist who keeps making you gargle literal shit.
So because Kamela didn't change her stance on genocide, you now have Trump who has the exact same stance on genocide, and wants to start 8 wars and a civil war as well.
Congratulations, you played yourself.
Even a dentist that makes you gargle shit is better than the dentist that makes you gargle shit and shoots you in the head afterwards.
I sure as hell haven't played myself, considering I'm not an American!
But you've accidentally put it exactly right:
Yes, because Kamala didn't change her stance on genocide, you now have Trump who has the exact same stance on genocide, and wants to start 8 wars and a civil war as well.
One person had the chance to change it all, but it was more important to ensure that Gaza continues to be erased.
You could have convinced millions of people to vote, or to change their vote, and you'd still have to convince many more to change the result. Or you could convince one single person, and it would have changed the result. Which is more realistic?