Democrats should resist the temptation to read this data as good news. Most wavering Trump voters are not becoming Democrats — they are disengaging from politics entirely. Of the 20.1 percent who are wavering, only 3.4 percent plan to vote Democrat. The remaining 16.7 percent say they will vote for neither party or are unsure.
I am most angry at centrist corporate Democrats who made this collapse into fascism nearly inevitable by refusing to do anything but condescend voters in response to the threat of fascism until they checked out from Democracy.
We are all going to hell with you, vapid losers.
I mean, I’d prefer they voted progressive, but I’m fine with them not voting at all.
There would have to be a progressive that was running. In most places there simply isn’t. You can’t get funding for progressive candidates because the system is designed to ensure anyone who would side with workers over the rich can’t win.
The ballot box won’t save us, and what might, is not something you can organize on the internet.
Get into the party and help make it happen.
They are there, they just don’t have the support they need.
Edit:
Bernie, AOC, Omar, don’t tell me they are the only ones in a country of 300 million.
But if people don’t engage, nothing happens, just like nothing has happened since the 70’s to improve democracy in USA, but it on the contrary has gotten worse!
Not engaging leaves the power with the 1%, so blame yourself and your fellow Americans.
Like I said, you need money to run a campaign. Donations don’t just appear out of the blue, and bootstrapping yourself into a legitimate candidate is a one in a million shot, so yes, progressive candidates exist, but they are exceptionally rare, and usually from a place with strong progressive organizing well below the elected representative level (unions, community orgs, progressive churches, etc.). It takes decades to build a self-sustaining movement, it’s not something that happens on the scale of an election cycle, and the internet of 2025 is an overwhelming obstacle, not a useful tool.
This is what you wrote:
And that is simply not true, Obama was elected by a majority of small donations.
Bernie could have run for president if he hadn’t been stopped by the undemocratic elections system in the democratic party.
I refrained from answering that part of your post because it doesn’t identify the real problem.
There is also a good chance ANY candidate gets money from billionaires because they often support both sides.
You are just making excuses for yourself to do nothing.
Obama failed to create lasting change because he had no choice but to bend the knee. The billionaires will not fund candidates that threaten their wealth, and the only way to even begin to fix this is by making sure there’s never another billionaire. Every last one of them is an abomination.
You are changing the subject, Obama did NOT have to bend the knee, but I agree the existence of billionaires is contrary to the ideals of democracy.
I am not changing the subject, what ended up becoming the ACA, Obama’s single most significant piece of legislation was dramatically watered down, and wildly less ambitious than he set out to achieve, precisely because he could not get anything more significant than he did past the lobbyists on whom their next election cycle depended, even when they had a super-majority to pass it.
You are changing the subject from that progressive candidates can’t get funding. They can.