No, they need to be an opposition party for the first fucking time in decades.
Pass laws to limit election spending/fund raising so that the playing field is about as even as we can manage. After those are set in stone and strong, dismantle the national committees and open the actual gates to allow whoever to run for office.
Even doing this wouldn’t change much though. The popularity contest not at all based on policy would still reign supreme and American voters are still American voters.
we are passed the ballot box.
What I’ve learned from the last two presidential elections is that right now, the incumbent party loses if people are unhappy with the current state of the country. A clever, but evil opposition party would try to make things worse.
This is why “doing what republiQans do” isn’t a useful tactic for Democrats. Never has been, though the party leaders have never learned it.
And they won’t.
The Democratic Party is frankly played out at this point. It’s pretty obviously a zombie party. We need a new one that isn’t beholden to neoliberalism.
Please keep that attitude in 2028, when every mention of voting third party gets you called a Nazi and “a vote for 3P is a vote for Trump!!”
When there’s a viable third party candidate, sure.
Otherwise - yes, it is a vote against your own interests. Hi, I’m one of those who pointed out its just a vote for trump in this past election. It was true then, its still true now. You don’t start during the presidential election season, or you’re just a grifter.
You push for 3rd party in local and state elections and get viable candidates.
Jill Stein is still nothing more than a piece of trash grifter.
You don’t start during the presidential election season, or you’re just a grifter.
Jill Stein is too busy having lunch with Putin to join the conversation.
Edit: you already called her out. I should read the whole comment before having a kneejerk reaction.
Different scenario. The hard work of getting a new party or new candidates into the process needs to be done right now. If you don’t see any fruits of that hard work come election day then you need to go with the stop-gap option.
Well, it is, statistically. The voting system makes sure of that. We need a better system before we can vote for the best, not the one who is most likely to beat the worst.
Failing to account for the constraints of the system you’re participating in is a recipe for failing to succeed in said system.
I’m not saying I like the DNC - in fact, I have come to outright detest the party as a whole. But there’s a reason why all the younger progressive legislators are still in the Democratic Party, and that’s tactical political pragmatism. That said, I do think the results of this election, and this continuing ratfucking by the DNC oligarchs is going to be seen as the breaking point in history books (if we eventually pull out of this authoritarian slide and have history books in the future, that is).
Although i was already leaning this way but Geriatric Nancy Pelosi pushing the vote against AOC from the hospital from her broken hip made me decide I won’t be voting Democrat in the national elections any time soon.
No - that’s the wrong response. You’ve got to be tactical. You can’t ignore the constraints of the system if you’re going to participate in the system. Doing so is a recipe for failure.
Exactly. I’ll vote for the kind of politician I want in the primary, and vote tactically for the one who is closest to my views, but who stands something of a chance of winning in the general.
It’s a good thing that primaries are fair and exist consistently.
I kinda stopped caring, been voting tactically the last three elections and still got orange mussolini and an our incumbent senator got beat by an out of state republican. And the democratic party is not adjusting, instead its doubling down. Why should I reward this kind of behavior. Local elections and state elections I’ll still keep supporting who I think is best
Why should I reward this kind of behavior.
That’s not how it works -you “reward” the behavior of candidates who vote the way you want and if there are none, you vote for the least damaging while encouraging those who do vote the way you want to run.
It’s not a boycott. If the party (any party, not just DNC) is broken - fix the party. The DNC has been broken for longer than not, but if you can think of anything good that’s happened in government, it’s almost always because of Democrats. That doesn’t happen by non-involvement, that’s not the fix.
That’s not how it works -you “reward” the behavior of candidates who vote the way you want
Easy for you to say. You have candidates who vote the way you want.
If the party (any party, not just DNC) is broken - fix the party.
By what mechanism? If the party loses nothing when it ignores its constituents, there’s no leverage.
That doesn’t happen by non-involvement, that’s not the fix.
Involvement hasn’t worked either. But now you get to blame the party acting like you want it to on people who are upset that it doesn’t work for them. It’s simple, if the party doesn’t work for you, it’s because you’re not involved enough! So really it’s your fault that the party is run by corrupt pro-genocide geriatrics who render primaries meaningless. Lazy millennials.
FWIW, I too share that deep sense of ennui. It’s genuinely hard not to feel that way at this point.
As opposed to the resounding success that we just saw.
both sides are bought and paid for with the same checks
only thing that could be done is to start over
Both sides do raise money to operate, but the people funding the two parties are, to a very large extent, different.
Michael Fucking Bloomberg is the top individual Democrat contributor in 2024.
A billionaire is a billionaire is a billionaire. When people say they are funded by the same people, we mean they’re funded by the same class interests. Individual small donations from the working class are a literal drop in the bucket compared to what the wealthy contribute.
The Democrats are still funded by the same set of class interests as the Republicans: the wealthy.
If the majority of your funding comes from people who like low taxes for the rich, don’t like programs to help the poor, and who generally just want to benefit the already-wealthy, then you’re going to really fucking struggle to represent interests of the working class, because the people funding you will stop funding you when you stop focusing on their problems.
Michael Bloomberg in my eyes is not materially different from Elon Musk. But sure, somehow the people funding the party are “different.” We didn’t just watch Pelosi squash AOCs committee for her wealthy donors, who don’t like AOC or what she’s selling. Give me a break.
I’ll acknowledge that this chart is a little old
Corporate America:
Google/Alphabet didn’t make that list?
Probably not then. Maybe now.
Seriously. If you haven’t switched your party affiliation to Independent, how’s the time to do it. It’ll take a pretty big hit to their register to actually get the lames in D.C. to care about us again
They’ll come up with a nifty hashtag like #resist or #democracy
And send out even more fundraising emails.
The key work here is "act’’ like an actor.
