Democrat reformists finding out that Democrats will only play dirty against the left.
Democrat reformists finding out that Democrats will only play dirty against the left.
341 comments
-
-
People who unironically belive that you can create real change by "voting harder" are the same people who think you can climb the economic ladder by "pulling yourself by the bootstrings"
-
You have to pull every lever of power or cede it to your enemies. Elections, media, violence, strikes, money, knowledge, power, everything.
Democrats agree with republicans on too many thing and will happily cede all of those things to them if they share a goal. That said, there's a reason republicans are trying to rig elections.
-
I think you can leverage votes for change, but that also requires somebody negotiating with Democrats like a union boss.
Probably a good idea to really start putting together a platform for 3rd party candidates right now. I've seen ads for a few people running for the midterms and they are definitely not getting started too early.
A 3rd party candidate with enough name recognition could be a good bargaining chip to light a fire and finally scare Dems out of complacency. If not, they're probably beyond redemption and should be replaced anyway.
That's how the fringe voters of the right became the modern Republican party's base. Think about what you could actually achieve when your shared goal is to progress society towards a more equal and just future rather than to micromanage it back to the dark ages.
-
or bomb countries into democracy
-
The guy is still running and the people can still vote for him. I'm not even sure that this endorsement is that necessary for this position:
The party hadn’t endorsed a mayoral candidate in 16 years prior to backing Fateh.
Whatever the feelings about the DFL and how they handled it, the power of the vote would seem to be intact. It's a bit premature to be fatalistic about voting in this particular scenario.
The Democrats who are refusing to respect "blue no matter who" as they support Cuomo anyway is worthy of criticism, but even then he is still the official candidate and the people can vote. The Cuomo supporters are acting poorly, but again, the vote at least still matters.
Raise awareness as well about these moves, but don't be dismissive of the voting.
-
You make some good points, but you can believe that voting isn't really going to change much but also practice harm reduction by voting. The two positions aren't mutually exclusive.
I don't believe for a second the ruling class would allow real change to happen through voting, but going into a voting booth once every couple of years is not that difficult and might keep actual fascists out of office.
-
-
-
We need a true leftist workers party so bad in America. Democrats are center right.
-
id say some Dems are dinos, are just moderate right , because they wouldnt be able to get elected without siding with the magat crazies.
-
In Europe, most "worker's " parties have become center with a tiny dash of left for "color". The sad thing is that real left parties are musty old "real" socialism parties, either populist or tankies.
What we need is a "fourth way" of politics, a system that makes billionaires impossible, that fosters public services, including housing, cares for the needy, etc, but also promotes entrepreneurship, taxes progressively, guards society against the excesses of capitalism, etc.
Planned economies defininitely don't work.
-
Tell that to China, with their 5 year plans. Capitalism is also not the way to move forward - it heavily promotes inequality and strife in the world.
Caring for the needy isn't charity, it's making sure they aren't needy. Promoting entrepreneurship isn't companies popping up left and right doing Uber but for dogs kind of idea, it's solving the world's biggest problems with new ideas.
You can't guard society against the excesses of capitalism because capitalism promotes corruption, artificial scarcity, and waste of resources by design.
With this being said, to change how the western world acts we must recognize that the party system exists to sustain itself and we won't have real change if we don't change it for power to be given to real people and not career politicians (or build guillotines)
-
What we need is some way to have all our groceries in one bag, but that bag isn't heavy.
-
What we need is a “fourth way” of politics, a system that makes billionaires impossible, that fosters public services, including housing, cares for the needy, etc, but also promotes entrepreneurship, taxes progressively, guards society against the excesses of capitalism, etc.
Oh, you mean, social liberalism?
Social liberalism: Social liberal parties stress civil and human rights and favour a social market economy.
Or the New Deal democrats of the Great Society reforms?
The Great Society sought to build on the legacy of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal reforms of the 1930s, and planned to use the power of the federal government in order to address economic inequality, improve education and healthcare, and promote civil rights.
There's that word people on here hate again: liberal. You guys are reinventing positions from willfully forgotten history of liberals & the Democratic party.
-
-
-
The Democratic Party is a honey pot trap used to attract and neutralize progressive and leftist politicians and policies and ensure that the “Overton Window” of American politics never moves left. They will let you “talk” about universal healthcare, for example, but they will never, EVER allow it to move forward as a serious legislative agenda.
-
Never forget that Obama had two whole years of a significant Democratic majority in both Congress AND Senate, and still somehow couldn't muster the cojones to pass anything even close to the socialised healthcare he'd campaigned on and had a huge popular mandate for.
Someone please explain why it is that when Republicans are the minority they have the ability to block absolutely everything the ruling party attempts, and yet when the Democrats are in opposition suddenly somehow it's impossible for them to do anything?
-
They simply don't want to.
Once it can happen, when it's a pattern happening their entire history it should be obvious.
The game is R: 5 steps right, D: 1 step left. But apparently americans can't see it.
Totally their own fault.
it's a running joke, especially now.
The game format inevitably results in a far-right stage eventually.
And yet they cry crocodile tears and are confused how they ended up there. -
Obama actually ran on the heritage foundation Romney care plan. It was Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primary that actually ran on a public option.
-
still somehow couldn’t muster the cojones to pass anything even close to the socialised healthcare
You guys are really trash at recalling or just looking up recent history. Many of us were there when it happened. We remember how it went down.
Too many conservative, pro-life Democrats were against anything better, and they had barely enough Democrats to squeeze through procedural obstacles (filibusters) in the Senate. A number of them voted against the bill that passed. ::: spoiler quotations
They chose this approach after concluding that filibuster-proof support in the Senate was not present for more progressive plans such as single-payer.
The holdouts came down to Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who caucused with Democrats, and conservative Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson. Lieberman's demand that the bill not include a public option was met, although supporters won various concessions, including allowing state-based public options such as Vermont's failed Green Mountain Care. Many voted against the bill that passed: it barely got through.
The White House and Reid addressed Nelson's concerns during a 13-hour negotiation with two concessions: a compromise on abortion, modifying the language of the bill "to give states the right to prohibit coverage of abortion within their own insurance exchanges"
On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it
Then at reconciliation of House & Senate bills for passage
The remaining obstacle was a pivotal group of pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak who were initially reluctant to support the bill.
The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it. ::: Someone please explain why
Because Democrats & leftists are better at infighting than setting aside differences to win.
-
Socialized healthcare was filibustered by every single republican, and in the 72 days they had supermajority WITH INDEPENDENTS one of which opposed public option, they passed the medicaid expansion which gave healthcare and in some cases dental to tens of millions of people. The time period you're talking about was also the most productive congress on record since the mid 20th century.
-
-
Clearly it's not working because despite progressive stances being a wide majority we haven't elected more than 48 DNC since 2013.
-
Citizens United essentially put the electoral system up for corporate sale. By 2013 it was fully in effect.
-
-
See I think that kind of defeatist logic is the trap - they flood the internet with pessimism and "there's no point in trying" and "there's no point in voting" to make sure YOU don't try. To make sure all you do is sit on your ass at home and complain on the internet.
-
The only way to change America is to remove billionaires from existing. As long as they hold all the power, nothing will get better significantly.
-
I never said any of that shit. The point is that, tactically speaking, we should be dealing with them as they are, and not giving them the benefit of the doubt, assuming they are on our side and operating in good faith, like the tired meme of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.
The threat is existential, and there should be qualifying and disqualifying criteria, and that criteria should be set by US, not some party dignitaries, not some fucking “consultants” who are getting money from billionaire funded PAC’s and think tanks.
-
That's not defeatist.
Defeatism is deciding now, over 3 years before the next election and 15 months before midterms, that there's no way you get someone elected who actually represents you, so you should just suck it up and vote for Kodos.
-
(((they)))
-
-
-
"Start small at the local level" centrists said, suppressing laughter.
-
"Local level is where real change starts. We never said we'd let it start."
-
-
Would be awesome to get a link to a news source as opposed to a Twitter screenshot.
-
It's the money. Campaigns are increasingly expensive by design. That and Citizens United basically made it so moneyed interests never have to worry about grassroots ever again. That's (very tangentially) why the internet is also getting so unpleasant, I think, to poison the discourse. If people were nice to each other all the time, we'd band together more easily. Paid trolls exist for a reason.
-
Social media has been flooded by propaganda bots for a while. Also its the old-guard dems were fighting, they are the ones that are colluding with the gop to an extent, both of them needs the same donors, so they cant have every issued fixed, they need to string along the voting base.
-
Kamala Harris out raised Trump. That's why she's now the president.
-
Only if you don't count Elon Musk buying Twitter and China using TikTok to promote and endorse Trump. If you really add up all of the costs to endorse candidates and not just campaign contributions, Trump probably wins by a margin of hundreds of billions.
-
🪤
-
-
On reddit, for my criticism of the Democratic Party, I am often censored on liberal spaces besides r/50501.
I follow the rules always, I cite sources, I am polite, and I am a US citizen. I am not influenced by Russian propaganda (to the best of my knowledge), and I'd like to say I have decent stances; I advocate for nonviolence and human rights, and generally advocate for progress and civility.
The "trolls" (I do my best to always assume good faith) here have nowhere near as much power here on the fediverse as on reddit.
On reddit, once you block someone, it shuts down discussion completely. Users there strategically block after their first rebuttal to prevent any of your responses from showing up and to gain the last word. I often waste time researching and typing a response, only to find out I was blocked and my response is only showing up for me. The only way to get around this is to edit your comments from before they blocked you, and it is very awkward (and usually results in lots of downvotes when you can't properly respond to someone calling you a Russian troll).
If OP blocks you, you get kicked from the thread completely. You can neither see the thread after that point, nor respond to anyone else. Even your comments on the thread are invisible on your user profile (so unless you do voodoo and find the comment permalink, it's difficult to edit your comment with a response).
Mods also abuse automod to trick you into thinking your posts or comments are showing up for others (like setting it to remove everything for a specific user). They do this to avoid accountability when they can't easily explain what rule you broke or when mods censor based on ideological grounds. I also get censored automatically by automod often and find that my posts or comments don't show up randomly - presumably I hit automod filters, but I still worry every single time that my account is shadowbanned.
If automod and the blocking functionality isn't abused, any divergent opinion or perspective gets completely buried by downvotes. Like me pointing out how rigged things are for progressives (it's hard for me to stomach people acting like the Democrats need to move right because progressive policies are "extremely unpopular").
Anyway, moderation has been very fair here to me, I just want others to know that reddit is completely busted for healthy discourse and some of the tricks users and mods use to create echo chambers.
-
any of the news subreddits, adjacent to the main one is very dicey to talk about. and any politics you have to walk on eggshells. there are ways around a blocked person, but it involves making new account to do it. ive blocked someone, and they decided to use another account and complain on the same thread about being blocked.(this prior to the purges of reddit). if you try to report the person, you could be targeted with a ban for "report abuse"
-
It's a lot of energy to invest in a discourse that is being oppositionally refereed. Under better circumstances I'd say it was laudable, and on Lemmy the effort is certainly less wasted, but I'm starting to wonder if maybe the better part of our energies are better spent on in-person political efforts.
-
The problem is that you really can't criticize the DNC without inadvertently endorsing the GOP. It's a fact of life in a two party system.
-
-
I feel like it's very optimistic of you to think that people suck balls on the Internet because they are paid and not because a lot of people are just generally shitty. I kinda hope you're right even tho that equates to a rather dystopian present. But the more I meet people, the more I realize that people just kinda suck. Like there are some truly abhorrent people out there... and they're multiplying lol.
-
Had a coworker harping on why its only right companies raise their prices if they can. People can just go somewhere else. Sure, bud. Not even gonna crack at all the shit wrong with that. Defending education is bearing its fruit in multitudes. I'll see you in the precious metal mines.
-
It's both. The 'Trolls from Olgino' (Internet Research Agency) definitely have been poisoning online debate for over a decade now. I'm old enough to remember that when people were mean on the internet, it used to be an attempt at punch-down humour. These days cruelty is a comedy-neutral norm. That, I contend, is manufactured.
-
-
-
I'm bracing myself for downvotes / banning, but I'm posting (from Minneapolis) to provide some context.
A more extensive, contemporaneous description of the convention is here, and the NY Times article geneva_conveniencel later linked explains a bit more.
My understanding / the short version is that the convention was very disorganized / poorly run, and didn't follow its own rules. Frey's campaign / delegates noticed irregularities right away, raised concerns (now found to be justified) that were dismissed, and ended up walking out in protest. It was understood that Frey wasn't likely to actually win the nomination, but could have feasibly prevented any endorsement (which Minneapolis DFL hasn't given since 2009).
My take is that Minneapolis DFL, whether from incompetence, or improper bias in favor of Fateh, or a conspiracy of Frey supporters in leadership that just wanted to provide grounds to invalidate the results, really fucked up here. Maybe Fateh could have still won the endorsement if all the ballots in the first round were counted, but we'll never know, because the second round would have been different. As it stands, I presume this is costing Fateh's campaign a bunch of money to reprint campaign signs/materials, pull ads, etc, that cited the endorsement.
I don't doubt that the establishment democrats would have found other things to complain about if Fateh had properly won this endorsement, but this was definitely not clean/proper, so withdrawing the endorsement is an appropriate course of action.
-
Context? With links instead of a Twitter screengrab? In my angry circlejerk? Begone!
-
I would recommend you actually do some research before you try typing a long post trying to explain to people what's going on.
From my understanding, this is not the fault of Fateh, but of the Democratic Party themselves, screwing up the excel sheet of one guy who probably didn't even matter.
Claiming this is a valid reason to throw the entire victory of the democratic socialists overboard seems outrageous.
The entire election process was already set up, super confusing, which seems to be done on purpose to prevent less wealthy candidates from running.
-
From my understanding, this is not the fault of Fateh, but of the Democratic Party themselves
Oopsie.
They get no benefit of the doubt. This was on purpose.
-
From my understanding, this is not the fault of Fateh, but of the Democratic Party themselves [...]
This is what I said.
Claiming this is a valid reason to throw the entire victory of the democratic socialists overboard seems outrageous.
The reason it matters is because of the nature of successive rounds of voting. When the missing (~175 / 1000) votes got counted (in retrospect), it showed an additional candidate should have been included in the second round of voting. And the democratic leadership pushed ahead with the flawed second round of voting without addressing the problem. I don't remember all the details, but I believe the final vote also broke their own procedural requirements (in addition to Frey's delegates having already walked out in protest).
I don't know their procedures (and welcome a source/explanation), but clearly the absence of an endorsement since 2009 indicates it's not easy to get the endorsement, and having an additional candidate in the second round of voting certainly seems like it has the potential to reduce the chances of a candidate securing the endorsement. I think it's entirely reasonable, particularly in that context, to withdraw the endorsement.
Edit to add: I also agree that the primary/convention system, procedures, etc, probably do favor candidates supported by "the establishment".
-
-
Don't worry about convenience, they're always spouting Russian Propoganda.
-
"Everyone to my left is Russian!"
-
-
-
Everyone knows the democrats will do this every time. “Vote blue no matter who” is a crock of shit and every single person who gives you shit for not voting for Harris and her shitty campaign that pandered to the right and Israel can be directed to party leadership’s behavior here and in New York
If they can run the risk of handing over mayorships to republicans because the “blue” candidate isn’t correctly blue then logically I can say I’m not going to back any genocide enabling, insider trading, corporate slaves who will sell out any marginalized group to keep their entrenched power (see newsoms pandering anti trans bullshit to charlie kirk).
-
"Vote blue no matter who" is a direct result of FPTP voting. Until that's fixed, yeah keep voting blue...if there isn't a more progressive candidate.
We need a viable third party and the time to start one was November 6, 2024. We're past the point to make a dent in the midterms (assuming we have elections) but we have time to run progressive candidates.
-
The time to do something different always seems to be some other time than now.
-
We cannot vote our way out of this
Idk how many times the democrats need to prove this, but the DNC exists to protect capital interests against socialist policies and candidates.
This isn't a problem with FPTP systems, its a problem of class conflict, and our whole fucking system was built with it in mind. Democrats will sooner partner with fascists to arrest progressive opposition than allow them to pull the country to the left of them.
-
Until that’s fixed, yeah keep voting blue…if there isn’t a more progressive candidate.
Except it goes out the window when the party isn't able to keep progressives off the ballot.
-
Most Democrats don't want to fix FPTP because it keeps people voting for them. If a Democrat doesn't explicitly oppose FPTP, then their actions say they support where we are right now.
We spend so much time yelling at internet people for not understanding the obvious logic of FPTP, yet give legislators the benefit of the doubt election after election. Yes they fucking know, it slapped everyone in the face in 2000.
There have been third parties for decades but they won't become viable until after they have been not viable. This scale of coordination takes more than 4 years. The first person you know who will vote against FPTP is you.
-
The issue is that with ballot access laws, third parties have to have a ton of momentum. And Democrats systematically engage in lawfare to kick third parties and other individuals off the ballot - look it up, they fight anyone to the left of them with more cohesion than they fight Republicans or Trump.
-
Seriously, people... throwing out your best option because you want better one down the road...
It's a strategy... I used it to protest the DNC in 2016... BUT IT REQUIRES YOU STILL HAVE A DEMOCRACY AND NOT A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP RUN BY AN INSURRECTIONIST. YOU FUCKED IT.
-
-
Your valid criticism is just purity testing to these people. I'm not sure what causes people to blindly worship the party to the degree that they do, but there has to be a way to bridge the gap.
The system isn't working at all here in America.
-
We are voting blue because the alternative is literal fascism as we're experiencing here, we don't have the political system set up for third-party voting, that begins at fucking HOME.
Get involved in your local governments and stop whinging about the federal elections. Your largely-ignored local and state elections are what gave all this mess the power it didn't deserve.
I mean, there's still a CHANCE to turn it around and restructure our government and our voting so we have actual choices, but right now, because everyone has been swayed or turned apathetic, we don't have a viable means for voting for anyone that isn't picked by the right or the further right.
Instead of shaming people for voting for Harris, we would do a lot better telling people who in their local states and cities need more support.
The left needs to get it's fart-huffing head out of its collective ass and stop trying to bicker and shame each other performatively. You want real results you get involved from the ground up. Otherwise you're just displaying how much better you are for internet points.
-
The left needs to get it’s fart-huffing head out of its collective ass and stop trying to bicker and shame
The left has reached out to the dnc repeatedly and only ever gets its hand slapped and nasty name calling and temper tantrums as a reply-- like you just did. The left doesnt need to do a damned thing-- the centrists do. You know where our votes are. Come get em, or dont. I no longer care what you lot of diet fascist election losers do.
-
The left needs to get its fart-huffing head out of its collective ass and stop trying to bicker and shame each other performatively.
So as one of those terminally online, over-educated, ‘dreamer’ leftists, I’m pretty tired of being vote-cucked in cycle after cycle by Democrat faithful and the DNC with “…but have you seen the Republican candidate?” messaging. I’m mad about the policy platform, but recognize the electoral games. You can convince me of the ‘lesser harm’ arguments, but that increasingly does not work with regular voters.
Voting is transactional, not aspirational. Reward voter’s loyalty with policies and governance that actually improves their lives, instead of protecting the Dow and NASDAQ. Someone who is struggling to pay for shelter and healthcare doesn’t give a flying fart about ‘muh institutions’ or ‘procedural issues’ they want results. They’ve been chided and goaded in past elections and didn’t see demonstrable improvements, but instead a widening wealth gap and decreased purchasing power amid windfall corporate profits.
right now, because everyone has been swayed or turned apathetic
Because this what the “vote blue no matter who” modality brings. Cynically wielding the right to ensure electoral compliance doesn’t work. Offering no real concrete policies or cross-party priorities like they used to doesn’t make people want to vote for you.
The party has shown its ass multiple times, and the electorate isn’t as stupid as the beltway folks think they are. Look at the ballot affiliation reports and see how cooked the party is, 4.5 million people said ‘nah they dgaf about me’
He said his worry is that all of these different kinds of voters feel like the Democratic Party left them. They “all shared the broader fact that they are working class and not feeling like we were talking to them or actually going to help them, so that needs to be fixed,” he said.
-
I'd argue that organizing a nationwide vote of no confidence for our entire government is imperative instead of playing games with the Democrats who prop up fascism by alienating people who want to achieve progress.
There is no precedent, but being held hostage to a broken system and playing in a rigged game will get us nowhere without extremely radical campaign finance reform and voting/election reform.
You need money to win elections, progressives and leftists or left-leaning individuals can't compete with big money.
-
the alternative is literal fascism
What the Democrats were doing in Gaza was literal fascism.
The left needs to get it’s fart-huffing head out of its collective ass and stop trying to bicker and shame each other performatively.
Lol, hypocrite.
-
You know when it comes to mayoral races you don't have to be subjected to two party rules? That shit is only problem in the big presidential races.
Come on folks do as Sanders said lets build a new party from the ground up. At least what we should have been doing since 2016. Instead they keep thinking we can fix the Democrats. Goddammit no wonder we are lost.
-
Isn't it cool how the Dems and the Nazis get equal criticism on Lemmy?
I mean, it's mostly valid, and yet...
-
-
This is why Americans are my literal enemy for life. Worst fucking neighbours. Nothing you guys do is for the betterment of all.
-
So who did you vote for then?
-
-
Organized people best organized money.
-
Well
Not in this specific example it didn't
But yeah
The city-chapter held their election in a very questionable manner and removed the third place from the running very early on, resulting in calls for either a refund of contributions or a complete redo.
-
-
-
I keep hearing how the new DNC Chair (whose name I only hear when people are telling me this) is doing things differently now and this is going to stop.
OK new DNC Chair whose name is in the news so rarely I can never remember it, it hardly seems like there could be a more fertile opportunity to stop working against progressives, so any day now.
-
Ken Martin has already neutered a notable progressive (David Hogg) by enforcing the neutrality of DNC officers in future primaries, while Hogg's election to Vice Chair of the DNC was invalidated months after Hogg started making waves on the grounds of "gender diversity".
-
by enforcing the neutrality of DNC officers in future primaries
Yeah, like it's not only gonna be for the one primary where they wanted to oust Hogg.
-
-
I assure you that the national committee had abso-fucking-lutely nothing to do with this city-chapter scandal.
-
Yeah, and currently people seem to think that Gavin Newsome would be anything other than a stock standard Democrat if he manages to win a 2028 Presidential bid (if the US even has an election).
But it's all just Social Media "clap back" and talking points. Obviously it's better to have a contender willing to do that, but he's unlikely to be much more than Biden 2.0.
-
Gavin Newsom is basically George Bush 3
the Dems of today are closer to 1990s Republicans than 2020s Republicans are
-
🙄 🫸social populism
😍👍 trolling on twitter
-
True, but the whole "if we have elections" part is why I'll back Newsom for now. Though I'm hoping a more socialist candidate gets the nomination.
-
Backing Newsom instead of demanding better is how Democrats will lose the election once again. Kamala didn't lose because she was black or a woman. She lost because she pushed a centrist line. And supposedly Kamala was the last hope to have elections in 2028, so I'm not sure how this line of thinking works.
Especially at this point when nothing is locked in I don't understand why people are capitulating against their own interests already.
At this point only the Democratic Socialists of America seems to have any standards within the Democratic party and the Dems are actively working against DSA as hard as possible. I'd be curious who the DSA would want to run as president though.
-
"stock standard Dem" is looking pretty good right now.
-
-
-
Democrats don't "play dirty" to the left. Your need to constantly be a victim is why Trump is president.
-
And Cuomo is running as an independent because he's just wanting to support the Democrat nominee?
-
-
I read about this one earlier. It's a city-chapter not state-chapter and the complaints came rolling in over how the chapter handled choosing their candidate and removing one of the other options too early, and threats of demanding refund of contributions from multiple members.
All in all it just sounds like the election itself was handled poorly and not any fault of any individual candidate.
EDIT: It's so funny when people block you and then reply to you, so you can't see what they're saying.
-
What a complete lack of surprise it is to see you defending the party ratfucking another progressive.
-
-
Well.
Have fun trying to make a 3rd party viable when no 3rd party is trying to be viable and when their most popular candidate only got half of a single percent of the total votes cast in 2024.
And have fun doing that before 2026 or 2028.
Yeah, I'll continue advocating for reforming an existing entity instead of chasing unicorns.
-
You're welcome to keep advocating for reform. Just be aware that Democrats will almost certainly pull out every dirty trick in the book, including going full Fascist, if a reformist ever stands to win.
-
Lemme know when you reform the Democrats, while they appease, playcate, and compromise with the fascists known as Republicans.
-
I’ll continue advocating for reforming an existing entity instead of chasing unicorns.
Almost every high functioning democracy in the world has managed to populate a credible multi-party assembly. To pick some random examples, the UK has ~14 different parties seated in its legislature, Canada has 5, France 12, Sweden 10, Germany 9, the Philippines 13, Japan 10. These aren't cherry-picked either, you can pretty much choose any country and go have a look at its assembly makeup, and you'll consistently see that the ones with only two parties are... not good company to be in.
The only thing stopping America from electing a government that represents the views of its people, are cheerleaders for the status quo using circular logic like yours.
-
And have fun doing that before 2026 or 2028.
Have fun trying to reform the Democrats by then...
-
-
The reason they do this is due to how people vote. You want change, show up and vote for socialist views.
-
They do this because their real constituents are the billionaire class. If they gave a shit about the vote they'd be lining up behind Mamdani 100% instead of covertly supporting
a sexual predatorAndrew Cuomo collaborating covertly withanother sexual predatorDonald Trump. -
Your user name is appropriate Mr Falcon.
-
The fact that just saying "vote for socialist views" is getting downvoted so hard in a progressive subreddit tells me all I need to know - this place is compromised.
-
Democratic Party leadership is elected. There’s nothing stopping people from getting elected to the party and forcing change.
My take on this is that the left of the mainstream left does not like building institutions or changing them. Or their ideas are just not popular amongst the people who are politically engaged. Like I don’t think a true democratic socialist could get elected as a state party chair in any US state. If they wanted to do so they would have to build a movement similar to what conservatives did with the tea party and grow the actively engaged base of the party. Instead people just complain online and do nothing.
-
There’s nothing stopping people from getting elected to the party and forcing change.
They ran out the vice chair of the dnc as soon as they started doing that lol
-
Have you ever heard the news of what happened to David Hogg? There is plenty stopping people from getting elected and making changes. Like a sudden revote to make sure he loses his seat he fought to win.
-
You're ignoring the role of Super PACs, which would crush even people running for DNC leadership.
-
If you wanted to there is a high probably you could get elected to your local democratic committee. A lot of the times they’re uncontested or are a very small constituency you can easily canvass.
There is nothing stopping you from registering as a democrat, knocking on all of your neighbors doors, asking them to consider registering as democrats and then asking them to vote for you.
I personally just don’t think these ideas are popular outside of certain pockets. If you want to change that you need to do the work…
Superpac money wont help much in a race with like 200 or even 2000 voters. If you’re willing to put the time in you can get into these positions.
-
-
There’s nothing stopping people from getting elected to the party and forcing change.
Lol
-
-
Democrats & the left love infighting more than winning. Happens here all the time.
341 comments
But you better vote for centrist genocider corporatists (who hate you) in the next election, or the centrist commenters on lemmy will NEVER FORGIVE YOU.
*eyeroll
I am somehow directly responsible for the defeat of every moderate chump, but utterly superfluous to every victory
I mean, yeah, until the revolution is televised you can only choose the least evil.
And the margin between greatest and least evil will continue to narrow.
Because of America’s two-party system, your only options are to:
A) vote for your preferred candidate in the primary, but against a candidate in the general election.
B) stay at home, tacitly supporting whatever the election outcome is.
Except the "lesser" evil party doesn't hold honest primaries, if they bother to hold them at all.
this is the fucking ticket. get rid of the fucking corpocrats before they get rid of your preferred candidates.