Almost as if they are doing it on purpose and are just the more culturally liberal of the two Wall Street parties… 🤔🤔
Someone like AOC and Bernie will never be allowed anywhere near actual power. God damn money.
and even if they did get in power, they’d still support NATO and imperialism in general, still support capitalist exploitation, and still would only pay lip service to or fight symptoms of systemic issues instead of ripping the cause that is capitalism out by it’s root
Cries in Latin-American Spanish
kamala was not pro corporate.
And this is when you vote for a third party. IMO the mentality of “having to vote one of these two” is toxic for a democratic system.
It’s a trap and these two parties massively profit off of it.
I hate that you’re not wrong. Gotta get rid of the current “winner take all” electoral system first though…
Im with you. If such trap can exist the system is wrongly setup.
Mandatory vote, ranked choice, popular no electoral
My understanding is that for third parties to become viable at the presidential they have to have first become viable in other levels of government. A third party presidential candidate should be the culmination of bottom up building, not a once every 4 years thing.
Its the fundamental death of democracy. There is only ever one “correct” choice on the ballot. No real decision except to show up and vote straight ticket or suffer guilt or derision from your peers.
This works just as well on Republicans as Democrats. You don’t see any dark horse Buchanans or Perots on the ballot anymore. Conservatives know any vote for someone other than Trump will be seen as a vote for the Democrat, just like Liberals know the opposite. And when the top of the ticket sucks (as with Hilary in 2016 or Romney in 2012), turnout sags and upsets happen.
The bitter truth Dems can’t face is that they ran bad candidates on weak platforms after disappointing terms in office. And this is what drove down turnout. Not insidious Arabs or nefarious Jill Stein voters or Russia. If they’d had a candidate as appealing to voters as Trump, running on the left side of the ticket, they could have won. Instead, they shed 15M votes chasing the Liz Cheney endorsement.
They don’t care about winning. They care about being cool at the right DC cocktail parties,which they have achieved by extracting their own base from the party in favor of a war criminal who left office with 13% approval.
The right won. They had more votes because many who voted democrat in 2020 voted red. How does going further left change that outcome?
If voters wanted politicians that are further left then wouldn’t they have voted for the politician that is furthest left?
I think most people just voted republican because they experienced inflation under Biden and dont understand why.
It’s not soorts teams. Going further left means reaching rural people and poor people. A lot of the working class just isn’t aware of what left and right mean. If the left let’s republican dictate who is taking those ppl’s side this is how it’s auways gonna end. Posh elitism has failed yet again
There was an election between an independent union leader and a career politician in Nebraska and the career politician won by a landslide. How do you explain that?
One example does not a rule make, and in the US electoral system money (and the party affiliations that bring it) speaks loudest of all. Maybe going further left wouldn’t work, but going further right certainly hasn’t. When Harris first emerged as the candidate she had such a swell of support, as she moved further right she lost it.
Voters are saying it is because of inflation. Not because she didn’t go further left.
Nebraska isn’t a homestead of liberal ideals?
Neither is the entirety of America.
They had more votes because many who voted democrat in 2020 voted red.
Source?
