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.
You mean the same person that refused to say “Genocide is bad, and we shouldn’t support it”? The same person who proudly stood behind Biden when was bombing innocent people? The same person who put people in prison for marijuana, then laughed about it when talking about smoking herself? The same person who campaigned with the Cheneys?
I think your definition of “halfway-kind-of-decent-sometimes” might be different than mine. All we’re looking for is someone who isn’t a monster, and she couldn’t even pull that off.
This is why the Democrats keep losing, and have such a low approval rating: They keep normalizing monsters, and can’t figure out why the voters don’t like that.
You mean the people from the DNC who pretty openly refuse to have fair elections? The same party that has shit on civil rights for decades? How is that not destroying our Democracy?
You’re right. Better to just actively or indirectly (through inaction) support the party that is currently actively revoking civil rights on a national scale, and planning to rig/end elections to stay in power indefinitely. That will fix the broken system.
That’s what gets me about this whole thing. There’s plenty of core of truth to the idea that the Democrats are very bad, although yes the alternative currently is infinitely worse. There are thousands of things that any given person could do to try to fix that or work for better things in American politics. Refusing to elect Democrats anymore, no matter what, is 0 of them, and will make things quite a lot worse.
It’s like punishing your child for bad grades by refusing to feed them anymore. One, it doesn’t address the problem, two, it will make even the thing you say you are upset about and trying to fix, infinitely worse.
Functionally, things are the way they are because the people that want to change things for the better do not make up the majority of people yet. Plenty of the boomers are still happy with the status quo since most of it doesn’t directly impact them. Gen X even was more right leaning than the boomers in 2024.
Just looking at the number of people that actually vote, neo-liberal boomers and Gen Xers will still be dictating policy for another decade at the least. If they aren’t progressive, most of the policy getting passed will not be either.
This isn’t even taking into account the way that land has more power than people in the US either. Sparsely populated red states hold just as much power in the Senate as New York or California. The House is currently capped on the number of Representatives as well, meaning that those small red states are over represented and larger blue and purple states are underrepresented.
The best shot at changing anything before another decade passes is by starting locally to each of us. We can try to do what New York City did and implement an alternative voting system in our own cities, that will help immensely to get more people like Mamdani in office. If we garner enough support at the city and local levels, we might even be able to be like Maine or Alaska and get an alternative voting system in place at the state level.
Alternative voting systems are pretty much the only real way third parties will have a chance to get off the ground and have a seat at the table on a national level. The main reason for that is because it helps mitigate the spoiler effect; where your preferred candidate and the safe candidate knock each other out allowing your least preferred candidate to win elections.
Want to help? Get the word out about alternative voting systems and organizations that promote them. Get involved locally.
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.
Some do, sure. But the two major parties have only put monsters on the ballot for the past few decades, so we don’t really know how many would pick a non-monster given the chance.
Parties didn’t put those politicians on the ballot, voters did. The Democratic party got rid of smoke filled rooms and contested conventions in the 1970’s and the Republican party followed suit in the 1980’s.
If you are disatisfied with the pols on offer, you have only to look to your neighbors.
The voters are often just as behind at times as the politicians they put into office. The lion’s share of the voters are neo-liberal Boomers and Gen Xers, of which the Gen Xers are more conservative than the boomers as of 2024.
We’re not going to look much different for ant least another decade unless suddenly a ton of Millennials and Zoomers show up to vote in record breaking numbers.
Changing our voting systems locally and on the state level is the best chance we have at making a difference within the next 10 years, imo. It opens up access for third parties to grow and it lets progressive have a better chance of squeaking out wins against the neo-liberal incumbents.
I think you’re right to be wary on waiting for time alone to save us. I think implementing ranked choice style of voting matters to prevent slipping further. Furthermore, pivoting to make blue states actually more progressive is what we need to do.
I believe blue states have held back on doing more because the belief was that we needed to pass the reforms federally for funding purposes, but I believe now we need to do the opposite. We need to remove the debt limit for blue states, implement progressive reforms, and only then will other states want to follow our lead.
Each blue state should focus on implementing Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services, Universal Healthcare, free public colleges, and expanding public housing options. For instance, I think many private apartments could be bought by the government for at cost and turned into publicly owned apartments that are not rented out for a profit.
lol, you mean the same DNC that said “…the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts.” ?
The same party that openly rigged the past two elections for the candidates that they wanted?
What do you think that quote means? Do you think the DNC would be saying that they don’t have to play fair, if they were playing fair? Go read the court case. They were told by a judge that they were right, and that they didn’t have to play fair.
You mean the same person that refused to say “Genocide is bad, and we shouldn’t support it”? The same person who proudly stood behind Biden when was bombing innocent people? The same person who put people in prison for marijuana, then laughed about it when talking about smoking herself? The same person who campaigned with the Cheneys?
I think your definition of “halfway-kind-of-decent-sometimes” might be different than mine. All we’re looking for is someone who isn’t a monster, and she couldn’t even pull that off.
This is why the Democrats keep losing, and have such a low approval rating: They keep normalizing monsters, and can’t figure out why the voters don’t like that.
I mean someone who will not literally destroy our democracy to remain in power. The bare minimum.
You mean the people from the DNC who pretty openly refuse to have fair elections? The same party that has shit on civil rights for decades? How is that not destroying our Democracy?
You’re right. Better to just actively or indirectly (through inaction) support the party that is currently actively revoking civil rights on a national scale, and planning to rig/end elections to stay in power indefinitely. That will fix the broken system.
That’s what gets me about this whole thing. There’s plenty of core of truth to the idea that the Democrats are very bad, although yes the alternative currently is infinitely worse. There are thousands of things that any given person could do to try to fix that or work for better things in American politics. Refusing to elect Democrats anymore, no matter what, is 0 of them, and will make things quite a lot worse.
It’s like punishing your child for bad grades by refusing to feed them anymore. One, it doesn’t address the problem, two, it will make even the thing you say you are upset about and trying to fix, infinitely worse.
Functionally, things are the way they are because the people that want to change things for the better do not make up the majority of people yet. Plenty of the boomers are still happy with the status quo since most of it doesn’t directly impact them. Gen X even was more right leaning than the boomers in 2024.
Just looking at the number of people that actually vote, neo-liberal boomers and Gen Xers will still be dictating policy for another decade at the least. If they aren’t progressive, most of the policy getting passed will not be either.
This isn’t even taking into account the way that land has more power than people in the US either. Sparsely populated red states hold just as much power in the Senate as New York or California. The House is currently capped on the number of Representatives as well, meaning that those small red states are over represented and larger blue and purple states are underrepresented.
The best shot at changing anything before another decade passes is by starting locally to each of us. We can try to do what New York City did and implement an alternative voting system in our own cities, that will help immensely to get more people like Mamdani in office. If we garner enough support at the city and local levels, we might even be able to be like Maine or Alaska and get an alternative voting system in place at the state level.
Alternative voting systems are pretty much the only real way third parties will have a chance to get off the ground and have a seat at the table on a national level. The main reason for that is because it helps mitigate the spoiler effect; where your preferred candidate and the safe candidate knock each other out allowing your least preferred candidate to win elections.
Want to help? Get the word out about alternative voting systems and organizations that promote them. Get involved locally.
Underrepresented Fediverse Social Media Accounts:
Involvement Links:
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.
Hard disagree. The voters very clearly do like monsters.
Some do, sure. But the two major parties have only put monsters on the ballot for the past few decades, so we don’t really know how many would pick a non-monster given the chance.
Parties didn’t put those politicians on the ballot, voters did. The Democratic party got rid of smoke filled rooms and contested conventions in the 1970’s and the Republican party followed suit in the 1980’s.
If you are disatisfied with the pols on offer, you have only to look to your neighbors.
The voters are often just as behind at times as the politicians they put into office. The lion’s share of the voters are neo-liberal Boomers and Gen Xers, of which the Gen Xers are more conservative than the boomers as of 2024.
We’re not going to look much different for ant least another decade unless suddenly a ton of Millennials and Zoomers show up to vote in record breaking numbers.
Changing our voting systems locally and on the state level is the best chance we have at making a difference within the next 10 years, imo. It opens up access for third parties to grow and it lets progressive have a better chance of squeaking out wins against the neo-liberal incumbents.
Ranked choice voting is a good idea, but time will not save us. Millenians are shifting right, just a decade behind other generations.
I think you’re right to be wary on waiting for time alone to save us. I think implementing ranked choice style of voting matters to prevent slipping further. Furthermore, pivoting to make blue states actually more progressive is what we need to do.
I believe blue states have held back on doing more because the belief was that we needed to pass the reforms federally for funding purposes, but I believe now we need to do the opposite. We need to remove the debt limit for blue states, implement progressive reforms, and only then will other states want to follow our lead.
Each blue state should focus on implementing Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services, Universal Healthcare, free public colleges, and expanding public housing options. For instance, I think many private apartments could be bought by the government for at cost and turned into publicly owned apartments that are not rented out for a profit.
lol, you mean the same DNC that said “…the DNC charter’s promise of ‘impartiality and evenhandedness’ as a mere political promise—political rhetoric that is not enforceable in federal courts.” ?
The same party that openly rigged the past two elections for the candidates that they wanted?
Rigged how? Do you think they flipped votes? Who got more primary delegates? Sanders? Biden? Or Clinton?
What do you think that quote means? Do you think the DNC would be saying that they don’t have to play fair, if they were playing fair? Go read the court case. They were told by a judge that they were right, and that they didn’t have to play fair.