US 2024 Presidential Election

[Agema]

Then all we're going to do is get more Trump because clearly "Nothing will fundamentally change" has somehow not convinced people to keep voting Democrats.

Well yes, that's exactly what's happening. People are trying Trump (/ Brexit / Farage / Le Pen / etc.) because mainstream politics has not been delivering, or not perceived to have been delivering.

But I guess what the left could ask is why people are taking a punt on the far right rather than the left. "But the Democrats..." or "but the centrists..." are excuses more than they are good reasons. The far right seems to have managed to capture a popular credibility that the left (in most Western countries) has not.

 

[Satinavian]

Then all we're going to do is get more Trump because clearly "Nothing will fundamentally change" has somehow not convinced people to keep voting Democrats.

Why do you think Agema wanting the left to actually develop proper policies and think about the implementation and how to tackle difficulties means he wants "nothing will ever change".

It seems quite the opposite to me. He seems annoyed that left parties, even when they occasionally get to power, have nothing to actually implement that has more substance than wishful thinking.

And, as he is British, he has probably other examples in mind than the US democrats. For example Labor who finally managed to currently win an election and now, well, managed to lose a lot of voter goodwill.
Or Frances left block whose suggestion to the current, dire financial difficulties of the country is to spend even more because it "will generate growth and thus even more revenue". (The same stupid argument that usually comes from the right : there it is "lower taxes will generate growth and thus more revenue")
Or Greeces Tsipras gouvernment which basically went with "We will end austery and can do that because lenders will just forgive our loans". Varoufakis is an utter moron.

There are a lot of leftwing gouvernment that come into power when a country has severe problems. And then not only fail to solve those problems but also to fulfill their other election promises - which nearly always are pretty expensive.

Now the populist right is even worse.

--------------

Now for the US specifically : There has never been a third party coming from the outside, growing and pushing an established party away. New parties only came to be when an old party imploded completely (like the Federalists) or split (like the Democratic-Republicans).

If you want to change things, you have to change the Democratic party. Either from within or via the many primaries on every level.

It is pretty much useless to vote third party on a presidential race when third party can't even get a single state governor. It is functionally identical to spoiling a ballot. (A protest vote is different from not voting, no one can assume apathy or lazyness)

And yes, the US democrats should move to the left. Even among centre-left parties across the globe they are esceptionally far to the right currently.

 

[Silvanus]

If people don't feel like their needs are being met, they'll look elsewhere. While I think it's incredibly foolish to look to Trump for that answer, people are going to go to alternatives (or stop participating at all because why play a rigged game).

This is true, and the Democrats' choice to appeal to an insipid, uninspiring centre (/ centre-right) is self-defeating drivel. Left-wing propositions, true M4A, worker protections, environmental protection etc is genuinely popular.

That said. Although there's widespread disillusion with the main parties, the vast majority of people are not turning to third parties. The Greens got less than 0.6%; all third parties and independents combined got less than 2%. Those main two parties, driving so much disillusion, got 98% anyway.

Why is that? I can think of several reasons;
1) All those voters genuinely prefer the platforms of the main parties (damn unlikely);
2) Voters do not have confidence in those other parties to govern;
3) Voters do not believe those other parties have a realistic chance to govern.

If as you've argued before, its never the voters at fault, and always the parties, then those parties need to address these things. I think that's what Agema's getting at (but correct me if I'm wrong).

For my part, i don't think there's much they realistically could do.

 

[tippy2k2]

Democrats have spent the last 25 years beating voters over the head that Third Party has no chance and telling people that if they vote Third Party, they are just throwing their vote away.

So now those people just don't bother voting instead.

While yes, that is indeed a problem Greens need to figure out, they're going up against the PR Machine and Juggernaut that is The Democrat Party. Democrats, who still even now, fight harder to keep Leftys out than they do against Republicans. Look at how Zohran Mamdani gets treated by Democrat Establishment for a great example of this. Many of them either flat out won't endorse him (even though Mamdani is the Democratic Nominee) or you'd think they were having their teeth and nails pulled out and gave their endorsement under extreme duress...

You guys keep asking me to support a party that ACTIVELY UNDERCUTS everything that I want because they're "better than the alternative". Y'all LESSER EVIL'ED us into this mess and now we're all getting to pay the price for it. Still, even in the face of this crisis, your answers are STILL "Hey, Democrats are the lesser evil so take what you can get!!!!" instead of demanding The Democrats change.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The sad reality of US politics at the moment is that you have a two-party system, either a Democrat or a Republican wins in your elections.

Even if both front bad candidates, I would still vote for the one that is less bad over the other because my not-voting would only decrease the chances of the less bad candidate winning.

Although in an ideal world I wouldn't want either party to win, in reality either of the two will win, so it would be in my best interest to vote for the one that I believe to be less bad.

In a healthy democracy I would encourage people to vote on basis of their principles, but that's not really a luxury Americans have at this point in time.

It's only a 2 party system because people don't vote for the other parties. People have far more power than they realize.

 

[Satinavian]

Still, even in the face of this crisis, your answers are STILL "Hey, Democrats are the lesser evil so take what you can get!!!!" instead of demanding The Democrats change.

NO, it is not.

How can you even write this directly after two posts demanding that "The Democrats change" ?

 

[tippy2k2]

NO, it is not.

How can you even write this directly after two posts demanding that "The Democrats change" ?

Are you still voting for them despite them still not changing?

Better yet, are you guys going to demand that I vote for them despite them not changing while they spit in my face?

 

[Satinavian]

Are you still voting for them despite them still not changing?

I have no vote as i am not a US citizen.

But yes, i would vote for them. And try to change them from within. Supporting specific candidates, get active in primaries etc.

I mean, it is not that difficult. I have been member of a political party where i live for some time and was even candidate on a rather local level. I went to protests. I voted on internally party programs. When i was not in a party, i often voted strategically to achieve specific coalition forming. Based on pragmatism and polls.

But i never wasted my vote.

 

[Agema]

Why do you think Agema wanting the left to actually develop proper policies and think about the implementation and how to tackle difficulties means he wants "nothing will ever change".

It seems quite the opposite to me. He seems annoyed that left parties, even when they occasionally get to power, have nothing to actually implement that has more substance than wishful thinking.

Yes.

I am sick to the back teeth, for instance, of people banging on about Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn, as is painfully obvious, was a fucking disaster. Policy-wise, okay. For exercising leadership, catastrophic. This is a man who basically disappeared for years as leader of the opposition whilst his approval rating sank from underwater, down through benthic, to hadal... and did nothing. Did he not think his personal reputation might matter when he was planning to be Prime Minister? Who ran a shambolically amateurish leadership outfit that left an election campaign underprepared-for and incompetent even when it arrived. Like the new party he's started, which has basically determinedly gazed at its navel for months and months unable to even pick a name, until one of its key founders threatened to blow it up. He is such a useless twat. He epitomises the promise of pixie rainbows and stupid optimism without any need to get shit done in the real world, and all he will ever do is squander opportunities.

 

[Silvanus]

While yes, that is indeed a problem Greens need to figure out, they're going up against the PR Machine and Juggernaut that is The Democrat Party. Democrats, who still even now, fight harder to keep Leftys out than they do against Republicans. Look at how Zohran Mamdani gets treated by Democrat Establishment for a great example of this. Many of them either flat out won't endorse him (even though Mamdani is the Democratic Nominee) or you'd think they were having their teeth and nails pulled out and gave their endorsement under extreme duress...

Well, if you think it's all just PR, the question becomes: why is the Democratic Party so much better at characterising the Green Party than the Green Party is at characterising itself?

That discrepancy-- 0.6% to 48%-- is not just money. Because although I saw a bunch of shite from the Dems about the Greens, I probably saw just as much or more from the Greens about themselves.

You guys keep asking me to support a party that ACTIVELY UNDERCUTS everything that I want because they're "better than the alternative". Y'all LESSER EVIL'ED us into this mess and now we're all getting to pay the price for it. Still, even in the face of this crisis, your answers are STILL "Hey, Democrats are the lesser evil so take what you can get!!!!" instead of demanding The Democrats change.

I'm not asking you to do anything. But let's be clear: this mess exists with both of us as onlookers. It happened in a world in which both of us took the decisions we made. If people of my stripe failed to stop it, so did people of your stripe.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'll remind everyone saying "just push them left" that the DNC was caught breaking their own rules to stop the party from being pushed left. And this isn't speculation, they argued in court that they're allowed to cheat in their own capricious thoughts and aren't required to follow their own rules in any way shape or form if they don't want to.

In Its Defense Against Fraud Suit From Bernie Supporters, the DNC Just Dug Itself Into an Epic Hole

If the party wants to favor a candidate, that's its own business, argues DNC lawyer.

inthesetimes.com

 

[bluegate]

It's only a 2 party system because people don't vote for the other parties. People have far more power than they realize.

Setting up a third, fourth, fifth, or whatever party in a two-party system takes time and a tremendous amount of effort.

It’s something that you have to work towards for years, even decades. You must put in the effort to set it up, build it, create a movement around it, and campaign for years with the knowledge that you won’t be able to change anything. You have to keep people energised through these periods of irrelevancy and keep on building it. It’s not something that magically manifests during election time.

It needs time and space to grow., but sadly you don't have this in modern day America as one of your two parties is lead by a populist wannabe-dictator who defecates all over your constitution and democratic institutions and everyone in said party falls in line behind him.

That's why voting for a third party in today's America is at best foolishly naive.

 

[Satinavian]

I'll remind everyone saying "just push them left" that the DNC was caught breaking their own rules to stop the party from being pushed left.

Sure. Those guys recognize how important the intra-Dem battles about direction are. That is exactly why they are doing it.

Of course when trying to push Democrats to the left you have to confront the guys who have pushed them to the right or maintained that position for decades.


Also, nasty infighting is something most parties experience. It isn't even particularly bad with the Democrats as far as i can tell.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Sure. Those guys recognize how important the intra-Dem battles about direction are. That is exactly why they are doing it.

Of course when trying to push Democrats to the left you have to confront the guys who have pushed them to the right or maintained that position for decades.

David Hogg tried to do that. I don't particularly think much about him, but he did work up the dem totem pole for years, building support, doing everything you're supposed to do before becoming vice chair of the DNC. He then offered that maybe the DNC shouldn't focus so much on safe octogenarians who are unpopular.

The DNC decided his election to vice chair didn't count, removed him from power, and ran a new internal election. It is genuinely easier to resist Trump's fascism from the streets than it is to change the inertia of the DNC. You quite literally can't change it from the inside, it's held by an iron grip of anti-democratic authoritarians who follow no rules, but will weaponize them against their enemies.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Setting up a third, fourth, fifth, or whatever party in a two-party system takes time and a tremendous amount of effort.

It’s something that you have to work towards for years, even decades. You must put in the effort to set it up, build it, create a movement around it, and campaign for years with the knowledge that you won’t be able to change anything. You have to keep people energised through these periods of irrelevancy and keep on building it. It’s not something that magically manifests during election time.

It needs time and space to grow., but sadly you don't have this in modern day America as one of your two parties is lead by a populist wannabe-dictator who defecates all over your constitution and democratic institutions and everyone in said party falls in line behind him.

That's why voting for a third party in today's America is at best foolishly naive.

You can just simply vote for the best candidate, you don't need build up. Literally just go to each candidate's website, read their platform, and vote for the one with the best platform. It's not that difficult.

It's because of rhetoric like that that keeps the 2 party system going...

 

[Silvanus]

David Hogg tried to do that. I don't particularly think much about him, but he did work up the dem totem pole for years, building support, doing everything you're supposed to do before becoming vice chair of the DNC. He then offered that maybe the DNC shouldn't focus so much on safe octogenarians who are unpopular.

The DNC decided his election to vice chair didn't count, removed him from power, and ran a new internal election. It is genuinely easier to resist Trump's fascism from the streets than it is to change the inertia of the DNC. You quite literally can't change it from the inside, it's held by an iron grip of anti-democratic authoritarians who follow no rules, but will weaponize them against their enemies.

This is all true, and what happened to Hogg and Kenyatta was stupid.

But you're overlooking two key details: first, that after deciding not to stand again, David Hogg's current work is with a PAC (Leaders We Deserve) that works to promote progressive candidates within the Democratic Party. He very expressly believes in pushing the Democratic Party left from within rather than splitting.

And second, his replacement as vice-chair after the re-vote is just as progressive.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

This is all true, and what happened to Hogg and Kenyatta was stupid.

But you're overlooking two key details: first, that after deciding not to stand again, David Hogg's current work is with a PAC (Leaders We Deserve) that works to promote progressive candidates within the Democratic Party. He very expressly believes in pushing the Democratic Party left from within rather than splitting.

And second, his replacement as vice-chair after the re-vote is just as progressive.

I never once claimed he was smart. The DNC showed itself to be incapable of change (again) so I really don't see the point of trying to change them from within. Nothing of note is going to be done unless you swap out a voting majority of the leadership through a leadership that will absolutely cheat to not lose their seats. In other words, you have to build a whole new party from the ground up. The only difference is that reforming the DNC involves hollowing it out and wearing it as a skinsuit.

 

[Seanchaidh]

And second, his replacement as vice-chair after the re-vote is just as progressive.

not very, then?

 

[Satinavian]

The only difference is that reforming the DNC involves hollowing it out and wearing it as a skinsuit.

Still more workable than a third party.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Still more workable than a third party.

Debatable, and I don't think so. You really are having to build a new party from scratch inside the DNC.