California’s governor is being touted as a successor to the Biden throne. Though he’s often imagined as a beacon of progress, his feckless record shows otherwise.
Who said to do that? I certainly didn’t. I push for parties that and actions that are actually trying to do something against the current party. The Democrats are the ones that have spent their time propping up and actively supporting the current party.
You started this conversation by advocating for not voting for Newsom if he is the only candidate with a chance against the GOP. If your “other parties” have fractional support of the democrats come general election day, they’re not viable alternatives and your vote for them is functionally identical to not voting at all.
By all means, I 100% support advocacy for change, for reform, for new people and ideas in power. But we also have a shitty voting system that means you usually need to pick the least of two evils come election day. And you need to be practical and make peace with that. I wish we had something like Approval voting where there was no push to a two party split and everyone could vote for every candidate or party they like, and I would support voting reform in that direction all day every day, but that is not what we have now.
If your “other parties” have fractional support of the democrats come general election day, they’re not viable alternatives…
And I’ve seen what happens when Democrats have power. They support the Republicans, build out the systems that the Republicans want, fight against meaningful change for the working-class, and screw over their voters. Functionally, they are worse than doing nothing at all. Why should I support them when they fight against the things that I want?
3rd parties have been fairly innefective at a national level, yes, but so have the Democrats.
Functionally, they are worse than doing nothing at all.
That’s simply not true. Neither about how they are universally supporting Republicans and fucking people over as a whole, nor that doing nothing is better. They are individuals, not a monolith, and the party is built from those individuals, not a static set of policies, principles and practices. It can be changed if you do something about it. And doing nothing does not acheive that. Best case scenario, doing nothing results in the same outcome, worst case it causes the worst outcome. Doing nothing is a cop out that makes you feel like you took some moral high ground while ultimately either not mattering at all or playing into the hands of the people who would do everything they can against your ideals. If you want to effect change, particularly for the democratic party, support and advocate for a new candidate with better ideals and resolve (or even run yourself), then primary out the useless incumbents. Far easier to do that then to suddenly see mass third party support giving them power to make change.
They are a party of sociopathic individuals who spend more time fighting against their voters than they do fighting for them.
Yes, they can change, and the fastest way to get them to change, is to make them realize that they don’t have my support until they start fighting for what I want. But they keep fighting against what I want, and are pretty open that they don’t really care.
If you want to try to reform them, go ahead. I have no problems with that, but I also have no faith that you will succeed. I think you’ll have just as much luck getting the Republicans to change as you will the Democrats.
In the meantime, I’ve long abandoned them, in favor of parties that are actually doing something for their voters.
Yes, they can change, and the fastest way to get them to change, is to make them realize that they don’t have my support until they start fighting for what I want.
The message they are getting is that the majority of active voters are voting for the GOP. They are not competing for non-voters or people that uselessly vote for third parties without a chance, they are competing for voters. If you are incentivizing them to change in any way, you are incentivizing them to move right and court more moderate republican voters. Your strategy is inherently self-defeating.
Yes, they are competing for GOP voters, rather than trying to pull in leftists. When leftists are on the ballot, they get a ton of votes, but the Democrats spend their time shooting down leftist candidates, because they don’t want to actually change. They have a choice: Pick up the voters that aren’t voting for one of the big-two parties, or pull in the right-wing voters. Which has been more productive in the past few elections?
Yes, they are competing for GOP voters, rather than trying to pull in leftists. When leftists are on the ballot, they get a ton of votes, but the Democrats spend their time shooting down leftist candidates, because they don’t want to actually change.
Right, we dont disagree about that. And that is maddening as hell. But, again, the way to fix that is by voting out the incumbents, the same old lifetime career men that just want to maintain their positions rather than to seek change. Refusing to vote for the entire party at all because of them just removes your voice, one of the more critical reformist voices, from the conversation, from the vote that ultimately matters.
They have a choice: Pick up the voters that aren’t voting for one of the big-two parties, or pull in the right-wing voters. Which has been more productive in the past few elections?
Hint: It’s been the former.
Again, we agree. The old guard are morons who are trying hold onto their old school party tooth and nail and are dragging it down. I want to take the party back from the old codgers and give them the boot. I want new voices, young voices, pissed off voices, and I get that by voting for them. I get that by making sure that the party itself isn’t incentivized to move farther right. I get that by participating in the debate and through advocacy. Not by abandoning them wholecloth because the DNC is corrupt, so my voice doesnt matter anymore. We have to change it from within.
I do wish that other parties were viable on a national scale. I do. But they are nowhere near it. By all means, vote them into office when it is between them and a dem. By all means vote your conscience when the stakes are low or the choice is safer. But if a right wing nut job is the likely outcome of a split vote, especially on a national scale, please for the love of god, dont split the vote.
I think our disagreement boils down to this: You think there’s a higher likelyhood that the Democratic ledership changes their ways, than there is that a third-party gains power.
I’m in direct opposition. I think there’s a higher chance that a third-party gains power, than there is that the Democrats start fighting for what I want.
Prove me wrong. I’d love to not be “politically homeless”, and have one of the big-two fight for what I want. But the Democrats have been very clear that they’d rather lose, than fight for what I want.
Who said to do that? I certainly didn’t. I push for parties that and actions that are actually trying to do something against the current party. The Democrats are the ones that have spent their time propping up and actively supporting the current party.
You started this conversation by advocating for not voting for Newsom if he is the only candidate with a chance against the GOP. If your “other parties” have fractional support of the democrats come general election day, they’re not viable alternatives and your vote for them is functionally identical to not voting at all.
By all means, I 100% support advocacy for change, for reform, for new people and ideas in power. But we also have a shitty voting system that means you usually need to pick the least of two evils come election day. And you need to be practical and make peace with that. I wish we had something like Approval voting where there was no push to a two party split and everyone could vote for every candidate or party they like, and I would support voting reform in that direction all day every day, but that is not what we have now.
And I’ve seen what happens when Democrats have power. They support the Republicans, build out the systems that the Republicans want, fight against meaningful change for the working-class, and screw over their voters. Functionally, they are worse than doing nothing at all. Why should I support them when they fight against the things that I want?
3rd parties have been fairly innefective at a national level, yes, but so have the Democrats.
That’s simply not true. Neither about how they are universally supporting Republicans and fucking people over as a whole, nor that doing nothing is better. They are individuals, not a monolith, and the party is built from those individuals, not a static set of policies, principles and practices. It can be changed if you do something about it. And doing nothing does not acheive that. Best case scenario, doing nothing results in the same outcome, worst case it causes the worst outcome. Doing nothing is a cop out that makes you feel like you took some moral high ground while ultimately either not mattering at all or playing into the hands of the people who would do everything they can against your ideals. If you want to effect change, particularly for the democratic party, support and advocate for a new candidate with better ideals and resolve (or even run yourself), then primary out the useless incumbents. Far easier to do that then to suddenly see mass third party support giving them power to make change.
They are a party of sociopathic individuals who spend more time fighting against their voters than they do fighting for them.
Yes, they can change, and the fastest way to get them to change, is to make them realize that they don’t have my support until they start fighting for what I want. But they keep fighting against what I want, and are pretty open that they don’t really care.
If you want to try to reform them, go ahead. I have no problems with that, but I also have no faith that you will succeed. I think you’ll have just as much luck getting the Republicans to change as you will the Democrats.
In the meantime, I’ve long abandoned them, in favor of parties that are actually doing something for their voters.
The message they are getting is that the majority of active voters are voting for the GOP. They are not competing for non-voters or people that uselessly vote for third parties without a chance, they are competing for voters. If you are incentivizing them to change in any way, you are incentivizing them to move right and court more moderate republican voters. Your strategy is inherently self-defeating.
Yes, they are competing for GOP voters, rather than trying to pull in leftists. When leftists are on the ballot, they get a ton of votes, but the Democrats spend their time shooting down leftist candidates, because they don’t want to actually change. They have a choice: Pick up the voters that aren’t voting for one of the big-two parties, or pull in the right-wing voters. Which has been more productive in the past few elections?
Hint: It’s been the former.
Right, we dont disagree about that. And that is maddening as hell. But, again, the way to fix that is by voting out the incumbents, the same old lifetime career men that just want to maintain their positions rather than to seek change. Refusing to vote for the entire party at all because of them just removes your voice, one of the more critical reformist voices, from the conversation, from the vote that ultimately matters.
Again, we agree. The old guard are morons who are trying hold onto their old school party tooth and nail and are dragging it down. I want to take the party back from the old codgers and give them the boot. I want new voices, young voices, pissed off voices, and I get that by voting for them. I get that by making sure that the party itself isn’t incentivized to move farther right. I get that by participating in the debate and through advocacy. Not by abandoning them wholecloth because the DNC is corrupt, so my voice doesnt matter anymore. We have to change it from within.
I do wish that other parties were viable on a national scale. I do. But they are nowhere near it. By all means, vote them into office when it is between them and a dem. By all means vote your conscience when the stakes are low or the choice is safer. But if a right wing nut job is the likely outcome of a split vote, especially on a national scale, please for the love of god, dont split the vote.
I think our disagreement boils down to this: You think there’s a higher likelyhood that the Democratic ledership changes their ways, than there is that a third-party gains power.
I’m in direct opposition. I think there’s a higher chance that a third-party gains power, than there is that the Democrats start fighting for what I want.
Prove me wrong. I’d love to not be “politically homeless”, and have one of the big-two fight for what I want. But the Democrats have been very clear that they’d rather lose, than fight for what I want.