Posts and comments can be in English and العربية
At what point do Democratic voters get to sue Biden / Harris for gross professional neglegence? Setting aside the morality of supporting genocide, the level of sheer political incompetence and mismanagement that led us to this result is mind boggling.
Remember this the next time the Democrats tell us that a real primary isn't needed, or the next time they put a thumb on the scale to push a particular nomination. The Democratic establishment is entirely unworthy of their positions.
The sad thing is that this is the perfect time to set up a progressive third party.
AOC and Bernie, maybe even Katie Porter for good measure. If they announced they were leaving the DNC to form a progressive party, I might even quit my job and join them.
And don't give me the "BuT tHeY wIlL sPliT tHe VoTe!" Bull shit.
The DNC is splitting the vote.
I keep giving actual IRL examples of a populist 3rd party breaking a duopoly in other countries, and people are still downvoting me on c/Politics for such an insane and radical idea.
I'm disappointed the progressives within the Democratic party haven't contemplated this, because they still feel as if they can fix the party from within, as if their own primaries aren't rigged every election season.
Like yes there is a big chance you won't win a majority the next election, but it sets you up as a proper competitor to the system, and soon supporters of both Democrats and Republicans will switch sides en masse after they experience the results and realize there is a better alternative.
I wish it were bullshit. It's just math and some pretty basic political science. There is no way to get even the majority of the Democratic voters base to switch at the same time, and if the shift is gradual the vote is split (whomever you want to say is splitting it) and we lose everything.
It's also a juvenile fantasy - the dream of just starting from scratch and getting right this time. There are tens of thousands of elected seats in state and federal government - nevermind local. For a party to threaten the Democrats, they would need a large percentage of those offices. State government runs elections and decides who gets on the ballot. You can't just bypass it. The moment you are a threat, ballot access will be pulled out of reach.
Assuming you could put together a large enough coalition to overcome these obstacles, you are going to have a hell of a time keeping the same corrupting forces from taking over. How many times have we elected politicians with progressive rhetoric only to see them turn on us once elected?
Anyone who has the clout to build a party from scratch, keep it on target, and displace one of two ruling parties would be more than capable of taking a party over, and would do so much more easily with a lot less risk.
You could use the exact same arguments you have for not voting at all, because a single vote doesn't matter.
Unfortunately, that is also a fact
Where else should I put my vote?
Did I suggest anywhere not voting for Democrats in a general election? We need to oust these losers in primaries.
Would that be the Democratic primaries? The ones controlled and legally manipulated by the party leadership itself?
If those are the contests you're depending on for achieving a fair and representative result, I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you..
I got news for you. (It shouldn't be news since I just said it, but whatever). General elections are also "controlled and legally manipulated" by the two parties.
No matter what way you come at it, every obstacle to taking over a party also exists in ousting a party, only worse. Like I said, I wish the answer was as simple as a new party, but that's just not reality.
General elections are also "controlled and legally manipulated" by the two parties.
Not to anywhere near the same degree. Primaries are LITERALLY the party's contest to do what they want with. They can and will make sure that their favored candidates win, to the detriment of anyone who's too progressive for the corporate donors they serve.
No matter what way you come at it, every obstacle to taking over a party also exists in ousting a party, only worse
Nope. That's just not true. What you're advocating for is to change the rules of the game by letting the opponent continue to be the corrupt referee who has control of every ruling and thus every outcome including the end result.
I'm not saying that working outside of the party to effect real systemic change won't be extremely difficult, but your way is literally impossible.
Not to anywhere near the same degree. Primaries are LITERALLY the party's contest to do what they want with.
And the general elections are LITERALLY whatever the two parties want them to be. Ballot access is the ballgame for third party candidates and there is LITERALLY nothing preventing them from writing access rules to make it nearly impossible to overcome.
Nope. That's just not true.
Ah, the "that's just like your opinion man" argument. I love that one.
What you're advocating for is to change the rules of the game by letting the opponent continue to be the corrupt referee...
How the fuck do you not get that the rules for national elections come from government fiat ruled by the existing two parties?
I'm not saying that working outside of the party to effect real systemic change won't be extremely difficult, but your way is literally impossible.
My way has LITERALLY had successes, including big ones like FDR and the New Deal. What successes does the third party approach have to show?
Every damn election we have to pretend like the third party approach has never been tried before. It's been tried almost every election since forever and has a perfect record of abject failure.
But what if everyone finally just did what your telling them to do, right? If only everyone would just vote how you want them to vote, your political strategy would work perfectly! Damn, you've solved politics!
damn... and !unsubscribe did nothing.
