There are several reasons why the MAGA crowd were allowed to take over the GOP. First, because they weren’t pushovers, if the party had tried shenanigans to stop them there was a real possibility of people defecting from the party en masse, and even of violence at the convention. Second, because the things they wanted weren’t really all that contrary to what the rich donors wanted.
The Democratic base is much more weak willed and willing to go along with whatever to stop the right. We don’t have enough of that Karen energy, that “my way or the highway” attitude. And election reform is directly contrary to the interests of the establishment, and the aim of prioritizing ordinary people over the rich goes against the interests of the doners. They’ll crush any internal movement in that direction, and people will still vote for them because of “vote blue no matter who” and lesser evilist ideology.
First, because they weren’t pushovers, if the party had tried shenanigans to stop them there was a real possibility of people defecting from the party en masse, and even of violence at the convention.
I think this overstates where things were at when Trump first got nominated during the GOP primary in 2016. If Trump had lost that, they just as easily could have voted red anyways. Republicans have been doing it for decades, they use their geriatric & evangelical blocs to strong arm their nominee to the presidency regardless of who it is.
Second, because the things they wanted weren’t really all that contrary to what the rich donors wanted.
Sure, but a lot of the time DNC candidates do things that the rich donors hate. Biden’s cap on insulin prices is a good example of that. There will always be pushback on good policy. Complaining doesn’t get us anywhere.
The Democratic base is much more weak willed and willing to go along with whatever to stop the right.
This is only really relevant for the actual elections. This effect isn’t nearly as strong in the primaries where it counts and is needed.
And election reform is directly contrary to the interests of the establishment, and the aim of prioritizing ordinary people over the rich goes against the interests of the doners. They’ll crush any internal movement in that direction
Look, either we work within the system to make things better, or we have a violent revolution. There isn’t much of a middle option. And I can pretty much guarantee you that a violent revolution would be the worse option given that it is a militarized police state with citizen tracking out the ass.
If every single leftist wins their DNC primary, the DNC doesn’t have much of a choice but to run with them. That’s how you get better candidates like AOC/Summer Lee/Jamaal Bowman, etc. They aren’t perfect by any means, but they are a hell of a lot more to the left than the DNC is. And I can tell you the DNC fuckin hates having said candidates within their party. But they suck it up and deal with it.
It is very much possible to get more candidates like that, but it requires focus on the primaries, just like the MAGA crowd did.
This is only really relevant for the actual elections. This effect isn’t nearly as strong in the primaries where it counts and is needed.
The DNC has literally testified in court that they don’t have to abide by the results of their primaries because they aren’t real elections. They don’t even have to hold primaries at all. The primary process is a joke and people who want genuine change won’t be allowed to win, it’s a dead end.
Look, either we work within the system to make things better, or we have a violent revolution. There isn’t much of a middle option.
There is, actually. Ditching the party and moving to a new one, for starters.
The DNC has literally testified in court that they don’t have to abide by the results of their primaries because they aren’t real elections. They don’t even have to hold primaries at all. The primary process is a joke and people who want genuine change won’t be allowed to win, it’s a dead end.
Yet the candidates I named won their congressional seats.
There is, actually. Ditching the party and moving to a new one, for starters.
And that’s how you get the spoiler effect, and another round of fascist SCOTUS appointments for the next few decades, a fascist president, project 2025, etc.
And that’s how you get the spoiler effect, and another round of fascist SCOTUS appointments for the next few decades, a fascist president, project 2025, etc.
Which will not happen. Millions of people are not going to suddenly change their two party voting behavior, as it has been established for well over a century at this point, because the system itself is the problem.
You are gambling with peoples lives if you vote 3rd party.
Won’t stop me from trying. If a third party gains enough strength, they could at least leverage an endorsement in exchange for concessions, while at the same time challenging the belief that they’re useless.
It’s true that lesser-evilist ideology has a vice grip on most Americans, so it’s an uphill battle. But it’s an incorrect ideology, and one that’s going to screw me over sooner or later, so I can’t accept it. I’d rather play the longshot, unless and until the democrats are actually willing to come to the negotiating table.
. If a third party gains enough strength, they could at least leverage an endorsement in exchange for concessions, while at the same time challenging the belief that they’re useless.
The key word there being “if”. It’s a gamble, and it is likely to result in Trump getting installed as president. When he kills gender affirming care programs, the blood of trans people will be on your hands. When he kills renewable energy programs and environmental protections, the deaths caused by the resulting heat waves/air polution/industrial runoff/etc will be ok your hands.
You are quite literally gambling with peoples lives.
But it’s an incorrect ideology
It’s not. It’s the natural, mathematical result of a FPTP voting system. If two candidates are close to each other on a hypothetical political map, and if everyone votes for the candidate closest to them, then the candidate farthest away wins.
Take this graph. If a 3rd candidate was running, and whose policy positions were at (-0.75, -.5) and Clinton at (-0.5, -0.75) then Clinton gets half the votes they otherwise would, and the same goes for the new 3rd candidate.
This is what happens when people just vote for whoever is closest to them. They split the vote. You cannot avoid this unless the system is changed, because this is the natural result of FPTP voting, a two party system.
and one that’s going to screw me over sooner or later, so I can’t accept it
It’s already screwing you over. It’s been screwing you over since you were born. And it will always continue to do so until the system is changed.
Because even if some 3rd party magically gained prominence, either the DNC or GOP would die, and we would be right back to two parties, and your options again limited.
No, it will be on the hands of the people who voted for Trump, not mine.
For the record, I am trans. The only viable long term strategy for minority groups is to band together and draw a red line that the democrats cannot win without meeting, and that red line means opposing the Palestinian genocide. I believe there’s a famous poem about what happens when the government starts picking people off and you do nothing, because you are not part of that group. We will be next. Your guilt tripping is meaningless to me, it will not get me to abandon my commitment to solidarity and to opposing genocide.
It’s not. It’s the natural, mathematical result of a FPTP voting system.
Incorrect. You are treating the options provided as set in stone, when they are not. Voting is a negotiation, and the party can change who it runs or how they act based on the actions of voters.
If I walk into a negotiation saying, “My only option is literally Hitler, I will vote for you no matter what,” then I have sacrificed every modicum of bargaining power I might have otherwise wielded. The mathematics of the situation are irrelevant, it is a game of chicken and they will flinch before I do. It’s their job to win us over, and if they can’t do that, they will lose and it will be their fault.
Because even if some 3rd party magically gained prominence, either the DNC or GOP would die, and we would be right back to two parties, and your options again limited.
Except that a third party could enact voting reform to get us out of this situation permanently, something which is impossible otherwise.
There are several reasons why the MAGA crowd were allowed to take over the GOP. First, because they weren’t pushovers, if the party had tried shenanigans to stop them there was a real possibility of people defecting from the party en masse, and even of violence at the convention. Second, because the things they wanted weren’t really all that contrary to what the rich donors wanted.
The Democratic base is much more weak willed and willing to go along with whatever to stop the right. We don’t have enough of that Karen energy, that “my way or the highway” attitude. And election reform is directly contrary to the interests of the establishment, and the aim of prioritizing ordinary people over the rich goes against the interests of the doners. They’ll crush any internal movement in that direction, and people will still vote for them because of “vote blue no matter who” and lesser evilist ideology.
I think this overstates where things were at when Trump first got nominated during the GOP primary in 2016. If Trump had lost that, they just as easily could have voted red anyways. Republicans have been doing it for decades, they use their geriatric & evangelical blocs to strong arm their nominee to the presidency regardless of who it is.
Sure, but a lot of the time DNC candidates do things that the rich donors hate. Biden’s cap on insulin prices is a good example of that. There will always be pushback on good policy. Complaining doesn’t get us anywhere.
This is only really relevant for the actual elections. This effect isn’t nearly as strong in the primaries where it counts and is needed.
Look, either we work within the system to make things better, or we have a violent revolution. There isn’t much of a middle option. And I can pretty much guarantee you that a violent revolution would be the worse option given that it is a militarized police state with citizen tracking out the ass.
If every single leftist wins their DNC primary, the DNC doesn’t have much of a choice but to run with them. That’s how you get better candidates like AOC/Summer Lee/Jamaal Bowman, etc. They aren’t perfect by any means, but they are a hell of a lot more to the left than the DNC is. And I can tell you the DNC fuckin hates having said candidates within their party. But they suck it up and deal with it.
It is very much possible to get more candidates like that, but it requires focus on the primaries, just like the MAGA crowd did.
The DNC has literally testified in court that they don’t have to abide by the results of their primaries because they aren’t real elections. They don’t even have to hold primaries at all. The primary process is a joke and people who want genuine change won’t be allowed to win, it’s a dead end.
There is, actually. Ditching the party and moving to a new one, for starters.
Yet the candidates I named won their congressional seats.
And that’s how you get the spoiler effect, and another round of fascist SCOTUS appointments for the next few decades, a fascist president, project 2025, etc.
Unless enough people do it.
Which will not happen. Millions of people are not going to suddenly change their two party voting behavior, as it has been established for well over a century at this point, because the system itself is the problem.
You are gambling with peoples lives if you vote 3rd party.
Won’t stop me from trying. If a third party gains enough strength, they could at least leverage an endorsement in exchange for concessions, while at the same time challenging the belief that they’re useless.
It’s true that lesser-evilist ideology has a vice grip on most Americans, so it’s an uphill battle. But it’s an incorrect ideology, and one that’s going to screw me over sooner or later, so I can’t accept it. I’d rather play the longshot, unless and until the democrats are actually willing to come to the negotiating table.
The key word there being “if”. It’s a gamble, and it is likely to result in Trump getting installed as president. When he kills gender affirming care programs, the blood of trans people will be on your hands. When he kills renewable energy programs and environmental protections, the deaths caused by the resulting heat waves/air polution/industrial runoff/etc will be ok your hands.
You are quite literally gambling with peoples lives.
It’s not. It’s the natural, mathematical result of a FPTP voting system. If two candidates are close to each other on a hypothetical political map, and if everyone votes for the candidate closest to them, then the candidate farthest away wins.
Take this graph. If a 3rd candidate was running, and whose policy positions were at (-0.75, -.5) and Clinton at (-0.5, -0.75) then Clinton gets half the votes they otherwise would, and the same goes for the new 3rd candidate.
This is what happens when people just vote for whoever is closest to them. They split the vote. You cannot avoid this unless the system is changed, because this is the natural result of FPTP voting, a two party system.
It’s already screwing you over. It’s been screwing you over since you were born. And it will always continue to do so until the system is changed.
Because even if some 3rd party magically gained prominence, either the DNC or GOP would die, and we would be right back to two parties, and your options again limited.
No, it will be on the hands of the people who voted for Trump, not mine.
For the record, I am trans. The only viable long term strategy for minority groups is to band together and draw a red line that the democrats cannot win without meeting, and that red line means opposing the Palestinian genocide. I believe there’s a famous poem about what happens when the government starts picking people off and you do nothing, because you are not part of that group. We will be next. Your guilt tripping is meaningless to me, it will not get me to abandon my commitment to solidarity and to opposing genocide.
Incorrect. You are treating the options provided as set in stone, when they are not. Voting is a negotiation, and the party can change who it runs or how they act based on the actions of voters.
If I walk into a negotiation saying, “My only option is literally Hitler, I will vote for you no matter what,” then I have sacrificed every modicum of bargaining power I might have otherwise wielded. The mathematics of the situation are irrelevant, it is a game of chicken and they will flinch before I do. It’s their job to win us over, and if they can’t do that, they will lose and it will be their fault.
Except that a third party could enact voting reform to get us out of this situation permanently, something which is impossible otherwise.