Abstaining or voting 3rd party to “make Dems listen” doesn’t work. If anyone thinks they can play Mexican Standoff, you can’t because the Dems have an out: the center voter. Every time they lose, they go to the center to find voters.
And remember they need all 3 of presidency, house of representatives, and senate to pass pretty much anything. If they don’t have all 3 they will go to the center to find voters. Some people call this rachet effect, but really they’re looking for voters. Want them to stop ‘racheting’? Then give them consistent and overwhelming victories.
I live in a red state, and the Democratic Party cannot even get enough warm bodies to ruin for every office here. The Libertarians do better with their candidates than the Democrats.
In Germany, the 2 historically biggest parties were SPD (used to be liberal-democrat) and CDU (conservative) and they often were the ones tugging it out while the smaller parties were filling in as coalition partners for one or the other.
Over time, the SPD splintered into several semi-big offshoot parties (Linke, for example) while the CDU stayed as a whole. As a result, CDU is now commonly a favorite for getting most votes in an election.
Is that consistent with politics across the globe? And if, why do liberal or center parties tend to split up more than conservatives?
Counterexample: The European Parliament. IMHO, it looks like 4 right-wing groups, 2 left-wing ones and 2 centrist ones. While the exact positioning could be argued over, the right wing is quite certainly more fragmented than the left is.
I commonly hear the left is a loose coalition of factions (which can split apart), while the right fall in line. I think there are fewer factions on the right, or the factions are not as far apart, so coming together is easier. They also unite in absolute hatred of the left, so will fall in line to slay that beast.
This is an incorrect framing of the situation. You aren’t being asked for a Yes/No vote on Democrats. You are being asked if you prefer Democrats or Republicans. Or for this election, if you prefer Democracy or Fascism. If you vote “no preference”, that does not communicate “I prefer the Democrats, but want them to move further left”, either logically or politically.
There are lots of ways to communicate desired policy changes: letter-writing, primaries (including campaigning/funding for candidates), protests, marches, press, social-media, etc. Voting against your interest is not one of them.
Dems need all 3 (presidency, house of reps, Senate) to do pretty much anything. They’ve had that for [drumroll please] 4 out of the last 24 years. Or 6 of the last 32 years. Or 6 of the last 44 fucking years.
They go to the center when they lose. If they don’t lose, they don’t need to go to the center to find voters. You can see my other comment, they’ve only had all 3 houses for 4 out of the last 24 years.
It’s the left’s fault for not feeling motivated to vote for a center-right party, they’ll become even more right if we don’t vote for them. Progressive candidates are dumb and unpopular.
I honestly don’t know what point you’re trying to get at. In any case, if the left wants to be effective, they have to vote for Dems. Because, again, when they lose they go to the center to find voters.
The death grip the Evangelical, ethno-state, GOP has created for its self, proves that voting locally for change, and voting in the “lesser” evil, in the presidential election, works. This was their strategy, only the GOP for the presidency, then, on the local levels, they spent most of their time getting people to vote them into smaller positions of power, especially judicial ones. Over the past 40 years they have entrenched themselves into so many voting districts, so many courts, so many sheriff’s offices, etc., that, even being the minority, they exercise power much greater than their numbers. During this time, they kept moving those local offerings further, and further right. So now we are seeing a significant amount of governors, and senators, that are full blown fascist/theocratic.
If we lock in the Dems federally, and vote progressives locally, we can accomplish the same. Especially if we focus on local voting reforms that are different styles of voting, that allow for more breathing room of third parties. The proof is that the far right theocrats did just this with the GOP.
I like how you twist that to “party license”. If the peoplevoters vote that way, that is the will of the peoplevoters. Don’t like it? Vote. For Dems. (Though the GOP bear some responsibility being obstructionist pos.)
So give up? Yea, it fucking sucks and is unfair as hell but voting is too easy to claim a lack motivation. It’s not a sustained effort, it’s something happens incredibly rarely and you can definitely handle. You can even mail that shit in in most places.
If you vote then it will be hard for the democrats to win and start shifting your countries policies to leftward(even if it’s an inch at a time). If you don’t vote then it will be impossible to do it.
If the people voters want more right, then that’s the will of the people voters. Thus the message: If you, as a leftist, want them to go left then you have to vote for Dems.
We can go through the whole history if you want. Every time the Dems go left, they lose. Every single time. So they go to the center to find voters. Then certain people whine “Why are they going center!!! We won’t vote for them!!! Rachet!!” That’s when I say playing Mexican Standoff won’t work. Because they have an out and you don’t. If you want them to stop going center, they have to win first. Because, again, when they lose they go to the center to find voters.
Abstaining or voting 3rd party to “make Dems listen” doesn’t work. If anyone thinks they can play Mexican Standoff, you can’t because the Dems have an out: the center voter. Every time they lose, they go to the center to find voters.
And remember they need all 3 of presidency, house of representatives, and senate to pass pretty much anything. If they don’t have all 3 they will go to the center to find voters. Some people call this rachet effect, but really they’re looking for voters. Want them to stop ‘racheting’? Then give them consistent and overwhelming victories.
I live in a red state, and the Democratic Party cannot even get enough warm bodies to ruin for every office here. The Libertarians do better with their candidates than the Democrats.
The obviously the tactical strategy is to vote libertarian
I’ve thought about that recently.
In Germany, the 2 historically biggest parties were SPD (used to be liberal-democrat) and CDU (conservative) and they often were the ones tugging it out while the smaller parties were filling in as coalition partners for one or the other.
Over time, the SPD splintered into several semi-big offshoot parties (Linke, for example) while the CDU stayed as a whole. As a result, CDU is now commonly a favorite for getting most votes in an election.
Is that consistent with politics across the globe? And if, why do liberal or center parties tend to split up more than conservatives?
Counterexample: The European Parliament. IMHO, it looks like 4 right-wing groups, 2 left-wing ones and 2 centrist ones. While the exact positioning could be argued over, the right wing is quite certainly more fragmented than the left is.
Because conservatives gravitate towards authority, and progressives are looking to break the status quo.
So conservatives value order, authority, and it causes them to fall in line.
Progressives are looking to break that order, believing that things can be better than they are right now. That causes them to infight more often.
I commonly hear the left is a loose coalition of factions (which can split apart), while the right fall in line. I think there are fewer factions on the right, or the factions are not as far apart, so coming together is easier. They also unite in absolute hatred of the left, so will fall in line to slay that beast.
So vote for them regardless and then they will listen?
This is an incorrect framing of the situation. You aren’t being asked for a Yes/No vote on Democrats. You are being asked if you prefer Democrats or Republicans. Or for this election, if you prefer Democracy or Fascism. If you vote “no preference”, that does not communicate “I prefer the Democrats, but want them to move further left”, either logically or politically.
There are lots of ways to communicate desired policy changes: letter-writing, primaries (including campaigning/funding for candidates), protests, marches, press, social-media, etc. Voting against your interest is not one of them.
Dems need all 3 (presidency, house of reps, Senate) to do pretty much anything. They’ve had that for [drumroll please] 4 out of the last 24 years. Or 6 of the last 32 years. Or 6 of the last 44 fucking years.
It was significantly shorter than that when you consider Senate control to be 60, which is what’s needed to bypass the fillibuster.
Supermajority was 4 months, out of the last 44 years. But whenever I mention that people think I’m fixated on that for some reason.
*Oh downvoted already. Some people really don’t like hearing this.
You shouldn’t cry about fake internet points
I’m not crying, I’m laughing how certain people downvote because they don’t like hearing facts.
The more elections the far right loses, the more the overton window shifts to the left.
Democrats move further right to get votes from the center but when they win it’ll go left trust me bro
This, but unironically.
They go to the center when they lose. If they don’t lose, they don’t need to go to the center to find voters. You can see my other comment, they’ve only had all 3 houses for 4 out of the last 24 years.
It’s the left’s fault for not feeling motivated to vote for a center-right party, they’ll become even more right if we don’t vote for them. Progressive candidates are dumb and unpopular.
So stay home/throw away your vote, I’m sure they’ll realize their mistake and go to the left any decade now to chase those reliable voters.
they don’t have to, let the whole thing collapse. Fascism never lasts long
Yeah, I’m sure the people who suffer and die under the fascist regime will be comforted by the fact it probably won’t last long.
Too bad you’ll find Nazis right along with you cheering on the rise of fascism, so I think your opinion can be safely discarded.
I honestly don’t know what point you’re trying to get at. In any case, if the left wants to be effective, they have to vote for Dems. Because, again, when they lose they go to the center to find voters.
seems like if the left wants to be effective at this point it has to go far beyond voting
The death grip the Evangelical, ethno-state, GOP has created for its self, proves that voting locally for change, and voting in the “lesser” evil, in the presidential election, works. This was their strategy, only the GOP for the presidency, then, on the local levels, they spent most of their time getting people to vote them into smaller positions of power, especially judicial ones. Over the past 40 years they have entrenched themselves into so many voting districts, so many courts, so many sheriff’s offices, etc., that, even being the minority, they exercise power much greater than their numbers. During this time, they kept moving those local offerings further, and further right. So now we are seeing a significant amount of governors, and senators, that are full blown fascist/theocratic.
If we lock in the Dems federally, and vote progressives locally, we can accomplish the same. Especially if we focus on local voting reforms that are different styles of voting, that allow for more breathing room of third parties. The proof is that the far right theocrats did just this with the GOP.
The odds of Democrats keeping the Senate seem dismal. So it sounds like we’re giving the party license to do nothing for another two years
I like how you twist that to “party license”. If the
peoplevoters vote that way, that is the will of thepeoplevoters. Don’t like it? Vote. For Dems. (Though the GOP bear some responsibility being obstructionist pos.)Sorry 50M Californians, but 40k West Virginians decided to go a different way. Guess this means no civil rights for another two years.
So give up? Yea, it fucking sucks and is unfair as hell but voting is too easy to claim a lack motivation. It’s not a sustained effort, it’s something happens incredibly rarely and you can definitely handle. You can even mail that shit in in most places.
If you vote then it will be hard for the democrats to win and start shifting your countries policies to leftward(even if it’s an inch at a time). If you don’t vote then it will be impossible to do it.
If your full effort begins and ends with election season, you’ve already given up.
Who said that? Oh right, nobody. Fuck, bro, get it together.
This is aimed at those people that think not voting or voting 3rd party is effective to “make Dems listen”. It is not. Voters have a say.
And in their trips to the centre they keep seeming to forget that they keep shifting further and further right
Centrists are a curse here
They. Are. Looking. For. Voters.
If the
peoplevoters want more right, then that’s the will of thepeoplevoters. Thus the message: If you, as a leftist, want them to go left then you have to vote for Dems.See you have this backwards, they are supposed to change and then they are rewarded with votes.
If you vote them in before they change, they have no reason to change.
We can go through the whole history if you want. Every time the Dems go left, they lose. Every single time. So they go to the center to find voters. Then certain people whine “Why are they going center!!! We won’t vote for them!!! Rachet!!” That’s when I say playing Mexican Standoff won’t work. Because they have an out and you don’t. If you want them to stop going center, they have to win first. Because, again, when they lose they go to the center to find voters.