As one party loses power it changes strategy to regain it, as one party gains power it is able to differentiate more amongst different ideologies within the party. If this goes far enough it can cause one party to fade to obscurity and a new party to emerge. There is no perfect candidate who represents everyone perfectly, you pick the candidate that is closer to the place you'd like to be. Also, third party votes work much better bottom-up vs top-down. Statistically no amount of crazy upset will cause a third party to actually win the top position despite no groundwork being done. Support third party candidates in small races where small grassroots efforts not funded by major political action groups are actually likely to make a difference. Then when you get a good candidate, organize and vote to see them advance to higher positions. It is batshit lunacy to expect third party candidate votes to matter in a presidential election when we don't even have a single third party state governor, zero third party national representatives and only 4 independent senators, none of whom even represent a third party, and none of whom are presidential candidates this election (let alone viable ones). Campaign for and support third party mayors, city councillors, comptrollers, sheriffs, union representatives. You have a very real shot with them and if enough people do that and enough of them move up to higher positions, then that party can start to swing some weight around at a higher and higher level.
Edi: Oh, and if you don't see an option in your local elections, run or encourage others to do so!
That's like saying you can get to zero by choosing the line climbing away from zero the slowest.
Relative Left is not the same as Absolute Left and it will never be actually move to the Left if the thing it's relative to keeps going even more to the Right.
This is why one of the most worrisome thing in the current Democrats is that their electoral strategy is almost purely one of relativism - they almost entirely stopped selling themselves on the good of the things they do and pretty much only sell themselves relatively to Trump.
A "not as bad as the other guys" strategy is not the same as wanting to be the "good guys".
That’s like saying you can get to zero by choosing the line climbing away from zero the slowest.
It's not like saying that at all. You've completely misunderstood my meaning.
The dems are "climbing away from zero slowly" because they're trying to woo voters from the republicans as the will of the voting public moves to the right. If everyone votes for the dems the republicans will need to shift their policies to the left to pursue the voters. The dems in turn will need to move further to the left to differentiate from the republicans.
I mean, beautiful, lovelly and well meaning, but totally ignoring that both Democrat and Republican politicians (who, after all, are but humans in an environment telling them "greed is good" and who for the most part seem to believe it) are motivated by primarily by money and for them votes are but a means to an end (4 more years with their hands in the kind of power that can be used to make very wealthy, very thankful friends).
I think you are projecting yourself (IMHO a person driven by principle and with a political ideology) into the kind of people who are experts at the dirty business of playing politics and getting fat checks from donors and concluding that they would do what you would do in their position, even when the last 3 decades of politics in the US indicate the very opposite.
Some politicians in American might indeed be principled (Sanders almost certainly is), but most seem to be just highly skilled manipulators driven by personal upside maximization.
Highly skilled manipulators driven by personal upside maximization aren't going to start working for the common good instead of making choices with the power they are entrust which will make them very wealthy and very thankful friends, if they think the Left are suckers and the leftwing vote is guaranteed if they use the usual lies.
You're dead right in that politicians are greedy assholes.
They want to win elections and to do that they need votes.
What would the republican party do if they'd lost miserably in every election in the last decade? Obviously they would shift their policies to the left in order to be more popular.
What would the democrats do if the republicans moved to the left? Obviously they would have to move further to the left to minimise the votes lost to the republican party.
As the population votes on the left, political policy moves to the left. This seems so plainly obvious to me.
Democrats only put forward a slightly more leftie candidate either after they lost an election or after they came very close to losing one. Republicans haven't put forward a more leftie candidade ever, even when they lost elections.
Sure, in a theoretical America were 80% of Americans were unshakeable convict lefties, it would make sense that both parties turn Left if they lost too many votes because that would be were 80% was that those people, being unshakeable in their political convictions, would not buldge from them.
However the Left in America is but a small minority and both parties have decades of actual proof that it's perfectly possible to keep the Left small with the right kind of propaganda because that's what they've done, again and again and again - the American political "center" isn't way to the Right of that in most of Europe by chance and wouldn't be moving even more to the Right not just in America but everywhere because people's political convictions are unshakeable and unchangeable.
Further, if there is one thing Trump has proven is that it's absolutelly feasible to move a huge fraction of voters even more to the Right when they were already very much into the Right (i.e. from Reaganism to pretty much Fascism).
Your entire theory is anchored on the idea that the electorate doesn't move, it's the politicians who move, when everything in History and even Present day, not just in Politics but even Marketing, not just in Democracy but in Authocracy, shows that the vast majority of people are incredibly easy for those who have control over a suficient fraction of the Press to push in the direction they want them to go.
(FOX News would not have the influence it has in American politics if people's political convictions were unshakeable).
Add that factor to your thinking and it makes a lot more sense that the crooked politicians looking for a payout from doing politics for very rich people would favour using propaganda to convince people that doing what's best for the rich is the right thing to do or that the fault of the problems in America is entirelly of immigrants so all the real solutions are around immigration ("and ignore all the tax cuts for the rich and deregulation I'm doing over here") rather than moving to were people were politically and doing what people wanted instead of what's best for the rich - the propaganda option works and guarantees that the mainstream politicians who chose to shift the electorate with propaganda instead of moving to were the electorate is, keep leaving politics far more wealthy than they came in.
Look around at Politics in American since at least Reagan and what I described in the paragraph above is exactly what has been happenning and is still happenning.
I'll leave you to your fantastical notions, which are contrary to pretty much all Historical evidence in Psychology, Marketing and Politics, about how people behave, both inside and outside Politics.
I’d generally agree, but the problem is that this particular instance is much higher stakes than most elections.
Generally speaking, the worst case scenario would be someone like John McCain taking the reins instead of Obama. I didn’t agree with McCain about a lot of things but he was a generally honorable guy who wanted to do the best for American democracy.
Now we have a group who is polling to win and outright saying “America needs a dictatorship”. If they get their way, it could be the last election we ever have.
McCain was a conservative and I don't agree with his policies but compared to today's Republican Party, he was a knight in shining armor. He spoke and acted in good faith, at least.
How do you get electoral reform when no one you vote for gets elected, and everyone who does get elected has no reason to pay any attention to your opinion?
I used to wonder if there was any line that people wouldn't cross with lesser-evilism, but now that I've seen all these takes just openly being like, "Yes, we're doing genocide, and if you break ranks over that, not only are you a bad person, but your behavior is only possibly explainable by you being a foreign agent or a conservative in disguise," and honestly it's pretty validating to know that yes, I was right all along that accepting that line of reasoning would lead to complete insanity with no limit on how extreme it could get. Like I've never voted for a major party presidential candidate because of that sort of thing but even I never expected the discourse to reach this level, and now that I've seen it play out I'm very glad I decided to distance myself from it. This is what zero principles does to a mfer.
It's really hard to see. Hearing that it doesn't matter that Biden supports Israel's genocide in Palestine because Trump would too is a bad take. It mattered to the thousands of people that have died. It matters to their families. It matters to their friends. So many of Biden's bad policies are just unforced errors. He doesn't have to be an unappealing candidate. He chooses to be an unappealing candidate. If he loses to Trump, that will be why. It'll be 2016 all over again. The genocide in Palestine is Biden's equivalent of just not setting foot in Michigan. And they'll blame voters, primarily independents and leftists (they already are), just like Hillary did, but ever think about what they could have done differently or better.
You'll have to be more specific about what blowing up the train maps to in real life before I can tell you whether or not doing so would also kill a shit ton of people.
But to keep it in metaphor, there are also innocent people riding the train and blowing it up would kill them, too.
Most of them, sure. But killing them with any kind of regularity would have a number of knock-on effects that would severely decrease many people's quality of life.
If your friend has a brain tumor, you don't point a gun to their head and shoot it out. You find brain surgeons and have them remove it under controlled conditions. Supposing you can't find a brain surgeon, it would still be better to learn brain surgery yourself and do a careful and thorough job than it would be to just shoot your friend in the head and hope for the best.
It's close enough to the tracks that it would hurt the hostages, and the wreckage would probably have enough momentum to hit them anyway.
This is a good analogy actually. Blowing up the train would feel good, but that isn't going to stop the momentum, and it's unfortunately virtually impossible to outright stop it's momentum at this point. All that blowing up the train would accomplish is sending fiery wreckage towards the middle track.
Why are you blaming the voters for not choosing the lesser evil, instead of blaming the dems for forcing them to make that choice in the first place?
Stop supporting and enabling the fucking genocide, then it's a no-brainer for everyone. And with so many other people's lives at stake as well as the Palestinians, how dare the dems play chicken?
Oh look, a tankie linking a psy-op. What a surprise.
I don't care what a random group says about Palestine when they claim to represent them. I have no way of verifying their integrity, and none of the people I know who have the skills to do so have recommended any to me. So I need to assume anything you link isn't genuine.
I came to my opinion after speaking with Palestinians not an "advocacy group". People who I am able to see, hear, and who's pain is clear in their voices and the tears on their face. People who are resigned to their best option in a man who's betrayed them less than his rival would.
I am autistic. For years the most popular advocates for people like me was Autism Speaks who openly talked about "curing" us. Advocacy groups are often a sham, and I don't trust them. Honestly, neither should you; it says a lot that (if you're sincere) you haven't figured that out.
It is well known that a number of states sow division in the populace of their enemies to weaken them. Does polarizing hot button issues do that? History says it does.
Does Palestine matter to them? No. Does polarizing the populace of the enemy matter to them? Yes. Are either of the organizations linked above tools of states that would like to harm America? I don't know. Could they, or similar organizations be used that way? Sure.
I made no statements one way or the other on whether this organization, or any other Palestinian organization was a psy op. Moreover, I specifically said I don't know. What I did say was that promoting a polarizing topic could sow division in a group, making it a viable option for a psy op.
Modern Leftism: Standing off to the side and doing nothing while watching a trolley plow through a crowd of people and then laying down judgment on the people that are actually doing something to save as many people as possible.
Can you tell me which pro-Palestinian advocacy groups informed your opinion? Clearly you follow many people who are doing the work, and are not some online ghoul saying civilians had it coming, so I'd love to learn more.
The Palestinian movement is fundamentally compromised. After October 7, it was imperative that as many Palestinians as possible denounce Hamas to make it clear that Hamas doesn't represent them.
Unfortunately this didn't happen. Sure a few people here and there said a few words against what Hamas did. But it's not the consensus among pro-Palestinian groups that what Hamas did was wrong.
This means that Hamas is currently inseparable from the Palestinian movement. Which means the Palestinian movement is not a non-violent resistance movement. At almost every protest you can see people cosplaying as Hamas. There are some even saying October 7 was justified. It is a violent movement which tolerates genocide, as long as it's their side doing the genocide.
The Palestinian movement simply doesn't have the moral high ground. It's now mostly about rationalizing why the genocide that occurred on October 7 was justified by claiming Israel is committing genocide and using "both sides" style logic. If both sides were actually committing genocide then a rational person wouldn't support either side. But we see pro Palestinian groups rationalizing the genocide Hamas committed which makes their false claims of Israel committing genocide a moot point. Even if Israel were committing genocide it doesn't make the nature of the present day Palestinian movement any better because Hamas committed genocide and Palestinians are unwilling to abandon Hamas.
It's largely a hate movement now. Hatred makes people feel strong, but in reality it just makes people stupid. It's why these movements ultimately fail. Too blinded by hatred to to make rational decisions about what's in the movement's best interests. Do you think the movement becoming more antisemitic every day is going to make it successful? Do you think denying the antisemitism will convince anyone outside this group? Nope. Stupid things are being done in hatred by the Palestinian movement right now.
And that's why the Palestinian movement will fail. Too much hatred making people act stupid. Even if there were a Palestinian state tomorrow it would be a failed state. Too much hatred and therefore too much stupidity to make things work.
I hope someday Palestinians can see what their hatred is doing to them. Then a Palestinian state could work. But I don't have much hope that it will happen in this generation. It doesn't matter if the hatred is justified or not. Hatred will always make people stupid and stupidity will always result in failure.
The electoral college indeed sucks. But it's a moot point because leftists will never get off their high horses to actually vote not matter what the system is.
Modern Leftism: I don't want to have a senile, racist, rapist, right-wing, war criminal, genocidair as president that will continue building a border wall and arming and funding genocide.
Liberals: BUT HAVE YOU CONSIDERED HOW MUCH WORSE IT WOULD BE IF HE HAD AN ORANGE SPRAY TAN!!!! TANKIE SCUM!!!!!
Or we're just demanding the Democrats at the very least, the minimum really, don't support a genocide. The bar is so low it's in hell. If Biden can't clear that it's because he doesn't want to.
Guys, I don't know what's going on in the world and their wars. I just want a president who isn't abhorently evil. Do we have to revolutionize to find that 3rd option orrr?
You realize why the Ashley Biden rape showers with grandpa suddenly became nearly mainstream news and will suddenly go away if Biden does what he's told?
If that's how it is then we've already lost. People who would make up stories like that would rather take the mask off and destroy democracy then let us get in their way.
I'm certain ballots with good options are unavailable absent a revolution, but if we tried under present conditions we'd likely only get worse governance and maybe destabilize the global balance of power catastrophically.
Thank you! We may eventually have to but revolutions do not have certain outcomes and we face a second problem that in general will require a mechanism for global cooperation which is hard to do when the state with the military, cultural, and economic influence the US currently has plunges into chaos
I assume your "abhorently evil" comment is based off support of the genocide in Palestine (which is a completely reasonable thing to describe as abhorently evil, I'm just being clear about my premise).
In which case, sorry, bad news, you can't have that. Your options this time round are genocide supporter or genocide supporter. Somewhere down the line, years from now, the US electoral system may have been sufficiently reformed to make third parties viable. But this year that's not going to happen.
So that decision is completely out of your hands. But here's what you do get to decide; you can have an outright fascist, leading a party of outright fascists who have openly publicised their plans to turn your country into a fascist theocracy. Or you can have the guys who strengthened workers rights and went after major companies for union busting, hit Microsoft for $20 billion in back taxes, had the FBI raid a major landlord for illegal price hikes, brought antitrust lawsuits against Amazon and several other large tech firms, and secured billions in aid for Ukraine in their fight for their freedom. And that is literally just a tiny sampling of the good things that Biden's government has done.
I don't even see how that's a choice. One of these two options is clearly and manifestly better than the other, no matter how disgusting it feels. A vote for Biden is not an endorsement of his position on Gaza. It is a tactical choice, nothing more. And if nothing else, its a tactical choice that will prevent the fascists from filling even more seats on the supreme court.
It sucks, but those are the only options. Sometimes life just be like that.
This guy gets it. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand. Not voting is essentially skewing the vote towards the diaper-wearing Nazi-Clown you once already had for a president. Vote for the least evil party, it's all you can do.
But what if I am a bad faith actor that only pushes the "no moral choice" position because I want to ensure that the fascists take power? Better yet, what if my Russian paycheck demands it. Then what do I do?
Are you forgetting about all the registered Democrats who voted uncommitted in the 2024 primaries? Not everybody who hates Biden is a Russian troll bud.
You're a moron. What you are proposing is not voting SPD in 1932/1933 Germany because they are too moderate for your liking. Lots of people did that and guess what - Hitler won and began dismantling the democratic system, killing political opponents and setting up the biggest industrial genocide machinery the world had ever seen.
Not voting Biden in the presidential election helps Trump.
So you admit that the problem is a moderate party half-assing elections because they think they can coast on not being "other guy". Democrats help trump because they'd rather have fascism than threaten the bottom line of their rich donors. How do you think it got this bad in the first place? Did you think democrats were the bastion of progress?
Yeah, the problem is a moderate party half-assing elections because they think they can coast on not being "other guy". The SDP help Hitler because they'd rather have fascism than threaten the bottom line of their rich donors. How do you think it got this bad in the first place? Did you think the SDP were the bastion of progress?
The old saying about not learning and being doomed to repeat history really is depressing when you see it happen in real time.
What lesson? That the rich and powerful will eventually make every society circle the drain and fighting it off just delays the inevitable?
Or is your intellectual take giving a free pass to the most powerful in society and saddling those with the least amount of power with the bulk of the responsibility?
The Democratic Party is largely conservative and reactionary. There are some progressive elements because progressives have nowhere else to go. The US election system is fucked and undemocratic. It needs to change.
Still, not voting for Democrats achieves absolutely nothing but costing them a vote they need against the literal fascists of the Republican Party.
Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, who was pressured by conservatives and capitalists, also the NSDAP was the strongest political party in both elections of 1932.
Without the substantial support for the NSDAP initially, there would have been no reason to appoint Hitler. The idea was that Hitler and his NSDAP could create a strong and lasting conservative government, a plan that would not have been suggested without their electoral success. Therefore, the support for the NSDAP in 1932 was the key reason Hitler became Chancellor. Paul von Hindenburg distrusted and despised Adolf Hitler as an unqualified upstart but felt compelled to appoint him as Chancellor due to political pressure and the unstable situation.
Hitler did not have a 50% majority but the NSDAP was the strongest party, giving them a lot of leverage. If his opposition had been more unified, he wouldn't have had a chance at becoming chancellor.
Specifically, he was appointed chancellor by the guy the SDP backed. How anyone can look at that and blame the KPD for running the only anti-Hitler candidate is baffling.
How am I wrong? Was it Trump that passed the COPS expansion, using federal funds to make sure police got funding expansions without local input, didn't Biden say that his Catholic faith meant that he was anti-abortion, and wasn't Biden's position on the Senate Council of Foreign Relations make him the Democrat with most input and culpability on how the war on terrorism was carried out? Were Muslims served by Biden's sanctions on Afghanistan, starving the people, as petty revenge for him following through on Trump's planned withdrawal not working out. Just excluding the point that Palestinians are Muslims and most Muslims care about Palestine. Did Biden stand up for trans rights or is his only saving grace not vocally cheering on the Republicans, and instead just try to avoid taking a position on that because Democrats don't actually want to fight for things or defend positions.
Go outside friend, and talk to people near you about these issues. Diversify where you consume amljd discuss information, online is prone to echo chambers.
Understand that nobody is immune to propaganda, including yourself.
Why should he "care about Muslims" any more than any other group? Would your opinion be the same that he should care about Christians? Jews? Buddhists?
The president of the USA is supposed to care about Americans.
Also Biden is not even slightly anti-abortion, wtf. Biden is a Catholic and would not personally choose to abort a child of his own, but as the President he supports the right to choose in service to the office and not to his personal beliefs.
This is what it means to be President, to do what is right for the people even if it goes against your own opinions. Did Trump really lower our expectations that badly?
As far as Muslims, I am responding to the people on the tracks in the meme. Biden has been vocally anti-abortion for most of his career, he is only trying to walk that back in the last few years. Even then, best case scenario, he is refusing to try to make progress on that issue to use it as a mobilization issue. If it is not an issue of legislation, but only the Supreme Court reversing the precedent, then you have to keep voting Democrat for a generation before progress can be attempted. That is what it means to be Democrat.
No, Biden did a number on me. It showed that Democrats and Liberals have absolutely no principles or beliefs. They are fine with a senile, racist, rapist, right-wing, war criminal, genocidaire president as long as he has a D next to his name and doesn't have an orange spray tan. Now Liberals think it is not fascist for ICE to put more people in concentration camps, the president to continue building the border wall, ignore human rights agreements to turn away asylum seekers, arm and fund genocide, continue interventions in the middle east, etc. It laid bare that all of the Liberal's objections to Trump were based not on principles nor positions, just that it was Trump doing it.
Since he unwaveringly supports the Zionist regime because they're Jews, it seems reasonable to conclude that his support of some ethnicities but not other makes him a racist.
I do agree that the POTUS is supposed to care about Americans (independently of ethnicity).
That is however not what Biden is doing - he's favoring some over others based on ethnicity (and money, like the vast majority of US Presidents).
Since he unwaveringly supports the Zionist regime because they're Jews, it seems reasonable to conclude that his support of some ethnicities but not other makes him a racist.
He supports Israel because they're our only real ally in that region of the world. It almost doesn't matter what they do, we'll continue to support them on that alone unless and until we get another significant ally in the Middle East.
Sending 2000lb bombs - well known for their massive collateral effects and hence innocent civilian deaths when used in an urban area - to a nation that's bombing a city and had by then already killed tens of thousands of civilians there, is well beyond merelly "supporting" them and well into supporting the Genocide itself.
Merelly "Supporting an Ally" that's doing what Israel is doing would at most go up to the US vetos at the UN Security Council and even that would only go so far and by the 10000th dead children would have changed from veto to abstention.
The smartest "Ally supporting" move for the US would've been to turn absolutelly neutral at around the 2nd or 3rd month of the Genocide.
(PS: This last one is actually what we saw with all other nations out there which saw Israel as allies, so most Western nations except the US, UK, and Germany - after the 7th of October, when pretty much all of them came out supporting Israel, as over time it became more and more clear that the Israeli actions were not defense but outright Genocide, they turned from supporters to in most cases absolutelly neutral and in some cases against them. Merelly "Supporting an Ally" is what the likes of France did, not what the American Biden Administration did).
The damage that this shit is doing for American soft power around the World must be immense - not even Trump managed to project in the minds of the well-educated the World over the impression that the US willingly and knowingly gives Genocidal nations bombs to murder children with.
Yup. You also get the middle track when you show up to the 2020 primaries and think to yourself "I'm gonna vote for a geriatric procorporate establishment white man. This is the best decision for me and everyone else will have to accept it because the alternative is Trump."
Lemmy was literally developed by communists and it feels like every other person here is a socialist.
I think I've only ever seen a few people on here call themselves liberals, and that was in the confused American version of the term, I've seen liberal used as an insult infinitely more.
Supporting Biden or Ukraine or Israel also does not immediately equal Liberalism, and I have no clue why yall have been treating it like it does.
Yes, liberals will not call themselves liberals. Much like NIMBYS would never call themselves NIMBYS. Especially ones trying to convince leftists to vote for a procorporate genocide supporting trash of a candidate.
The tracks to the correct path can be built by passing state level electoral reform.
Abolishing the First Past the Post electoral system would allow voters to support third-party candidates without fearing they'll spoil the election. This reform would invigorate competition in elections, leading to better-quality candidates for all voters. Moreover, it's likely to boost voter turnout and civic engagement.
At the state level, electoral reform is feasible; Alaska and Maine have already enacted such changes, demonstrating its viability.
Despite this, some Republicans are staunchly defending First Past the Post voting, as seen in Florida's recent ban on Ranked Choice voting. Fortunately, there are numerous of other alternatives available, ensuring that electoral reform can still progress despite such obstacles.
So, why do some blue states want to continueusing FPTP voting? Why continue using a voting system favored by Republicans? In states controlled by Democrats, there's no Republican opposition hindering electoral reform efforts.
It's apparent that Democrats acknowledge the flaws of FPTP voting, evident in discussions on social media where many Democrats caution against voting third party. It's perplexing to recognize these flaws yet fail to take action to address them. Merely lecturing on the shortcomings of FPTP voting without pursuing solutions is insufficient.
Here are some videos on the topic if you’d like to know more:
I swear I hear this regardless of how close we are to the next presidential election. Can we maybe focus on some of the other races on the ballot? I would love if we could get a Congress that was actually able to make good things happen, instead of trying very hard to do nothing so bad things don't happen.
Yeah, the focus on winning the presidency ignores the down ballot, small market and "off-cycle" races, and, to get to fillibuster-proof majorities, those races are the ones that need to be won. Berating progressives in urban areas to vote for moderate liberal candidates for president is not exactly harm reduction.
Oh, good! Is it also owned by large corporations who have interests that cause them to favor certain stories because it impacts their bottom line and the editorial desk does not have strong independence from the business side of things because of a monoculture of publishers? Surely, this will bring us a wide variety of political candidates and not an endless parade of arch-capitalists and fascists who give kickbacks to corporations!
So, why do some blue states want to continueusing FPTP voting? Why continue using a voting system favored by Republicans? In states controlled by Democrats, there's no Republican opposition hindering electoral reform efforts.
FPTP favors whichever party is currently in power in a two party system. Solid blue states don't want to switch because it makes their hold on power less secure. Same reason as Republicans in red states.
Electoral systems is a pretty nerdy topic (despite how important it is for who gets power), so it is not an issue the typical voter cares for. Therefore there is not enough political capital for such large reforms to be taken on by politicians.
This is why I, as an autistic person, think internally using a sort of infinite mechanical analog diagram sheet thing.
Physical analogies are beautiful for how quickly they can convey a concept. Those disconnected tracks are a great representation of the third party voting situation we face, the “throwaway vote” problem.
And I thought this was perfect for demonstrating why people avoiding the donkey track for a single issue, no matter how bad, really need to look at the rest of the video picture, the state of the other choices
