I forget the actual numbers, but the rule of thumb is that it would basically take multiple 9-11s during COVID-2-Electric-Boogaloo AND a sex scandal to get a president below (ass pulling) 30%. Which, accounting for a party specific poll, makes that 44% look REALLY bad.
Because anyone who has spent any time in the hell that is dating apps can tell you: Only the nuttiest of nutbars identify as “conservative”. The rest of the chuds are “moderate” or “apolitical” because they still want to get their fuck on.
Came here to say this, and I’m not on the dating scene at all, but you see it in just so many other contexts. It became so ridiculous even decades ago, reaching ludicrous speed under donnie. The Professional Left podcast, at least, constantly mocks the notion.
When someone says they are an “independent”, I think very few are genuine. I think many of them are just conservatives that are lying, some are possibly Libertarian who are also just lying, some may be very low-info, but thinks this makes them sound S-M-R-T, and then the very last group may possibly be actually independents.
It’s super annoying, because that term should belong to “if you’ve got an hour we can grab coffee and I’ll explain my politics to you. You don’t? Uhh … ‘rather to the left’?”, and not “I’m fine with the gays and poors, but I don’t know if I’m comfortable with the government helping or protecting them”.
Maybe I’m in the minority, but over 20 years ago I never signed up for a party because I thought they were both suspect at the time. I’m further left than when I left highschool, and as I’ve watched the working class get fucked over more and more I see little reason to change that. Briefly considered joining the Green party around 2016 (actually briefly did some phone banking for them), but decided against it. I don’t trust any political party in the US at this point, so not planning on changing that any time soon.
Do you think this “signing up for a party” nonsense is why Americans can’t see past allegiances and pick based on the plans and theme a party puts forth in a given election cycle?
My voting has been consistent between three parties, but only because the platform varied and one edged the other out. I can’t imagine deciding based on identity instead.
Functionally there are only 2, and I say that as someone way further to the left than democrats.
You’ve got a few issues at play. First, making a party is easy enough, but getting recognized by each state is a huge hurdle - namely ballot access.
To be named as the party and on the ballot, you may need to:
Have received more than 10% of the vote in the prior election
Get signatures equal to a percent of the voting population, but specifically at least 10% of those must come from the least populous counties
Some states require those signatures only include voters who were both registered and eligible to vote in the previous election.
There’s more, but I think a good enough sample of the initial “fun”.
Because thats just to get on the ballot as a member of the party. After that, you still must get at least a specific percentage to have that party remain eligible for the ballot outside of an annual set of petitions, you may have to have a candidate for every election cycle, you may need to get a certain percentage (10%-20%) in the previous election to be considered a major party rather than a minor party, which changes eligibility for funds for the election among other benefits.
There’s so much more, but I think that’d enough of the pain there.
Its not about “picking a team” so much as “not being a member of a major party limits access so substantially that a minor party may as well not exist, so you may as well join a major party so you can at least vote in meaningful primaries”.
Its a manufactured issue that would take gaining power to change. So your choice becomes “party of center-right but pretends to be the left” or “go-go-gadget christofascist regime”.
Outside of local, its hard to get third parties further up the chain. Really hard. By design of the two parties that have been in control one way or another for about 175 years. There have also been swaps of stances over that time, but Democrats have been further to the left than Republicans since around the 1930s.
In short - “shits all fucked up”, but you only effectively get two parties at any scale.
Yes and no, there are stark differences between the parties still. That doesnt make the democrats good, but more like a hand grenade isnt as destructive as an ICBM.
Do they all serve moneyed interests? Yes. But that doesnt make them equal though by any stretch.
“just 44% of Republicans thought Trump was handling the Epstein situation well.”
Never trust conservatives. Holy shit is this behavior embarrassing to us all.
I forget the actual numbers, but the rule of thumb is that it would basically take multiple 9-11s during COVID-2-Electric-Boogaloo AND a sex scandal to get a president below (ass pulling) 30%. Which, accounting for a party specific poll, makes that 44% look REALLY bad.
Because anyone who has spent any time in the hell that is dating apps can tell you: Only the nuttiest of nutbars identify as “conservative”. The rest of the chuds are “moderate” or “apolitical” because they still want to get their fuck on.
Independent is another tell.
Came here to say this, and I’m not on the dating scene at all, but you see it in just so many other contexts. It became so ridiculous even decades ago, reaching ludicrous speed under donnie. The Professional Left podcast, at least, constantly mocks the notion.
When someone says they are an “independent”, I think very few are genuine. I think many of them are just conservatives that are lying, some are possibly Libertarian who are also just lying, some may be very low-info, but thinks this makes them sound S-M-R-T, and then the very last group may possibly be actually independents.
Lots of ‘libertarians’ are also just republicans with enough self awareness to be embarrassed about admitting it.
Most libertarians are going through a transitory phase in my experience.
Most “libertarians” I’ve met will say that both sides suck and then only talk shit about one side. I’m sure you can guess which.
It’s super annoying, because that term should belong to “if you’ve got an hour we can grab coffee and I’ll explain my politics to you. You don’t? Uhh … ‘rather to the left’?”, and not “I’m fine with the gays and poors, but I don’t know if I’m comfortable with the government helping or protecting them”.
Maybe I’m in the minority, but over 20 years ago I never signed up for a party because I thought they were both suspect at the time. I’m further left than when I left highschool, and as I’ve watched the working class get fucked over more and more I see little reason to change that. Briefly considered joining the Green party around 2016 (actually briefly did some phone banking for them), but decided against it. I don’t trust any political party in the US at this point, so not planning on changing that any time soon.
Do you think this “signing up for a party” nonsense is why Americans can’t see past allegiances and pick based on the plans and theme a party puts forth in a given election cycle?
My voting has been consistent between three parties, but only because the platform varied and one edged the other out. I can’t imagine deciding based on identity instead.
Functionally there are only 2, and I say that as someone way further to the left than democrats.
You’ve got a few issues at play. First, making a party is easy enough, but getting recognized by each state is a huge hurdle - namely ballot access.
To be named as the party and on the ballot, you may need to:
There’s more, but I think a good enough sample of the initial “fun”.
Because thats just to get on the ballot as a member of the party. After that, you still must get at least a specific percentage to have that party remain eligible for the ballot outside of an annual set of petitions, you may have to have a candidate for every election cycle, you may need to get a certain percentage (10%-20%) in the previous election to be considered a major party rather than a minor party, which changes eligibility for funds for the election among other benefits.
There’s so much more, but I think that’d enough of the pain there.
Its not about “picking a team” so much as “not being a member of a major party limits access so substantially that a minor party may as well not exist, so you may as well join a major party so you can at least vote in meaningful primaries”.
Its a manufactured issue that would take gaining power to change. So your choice becomes “party of center-right but pretends to be the left” or “go-go-gadget christofascist regime”.
Outside of local, its hard to get third parties further up the chain. Really hard. By design of the two parties that have been in control one way or another for about 175 years. There have also been swaps of stances over that time, but Democrats have been further to the left than Republicans since around the 1930s.
In short - “shits all fucked up”, but you only effectively get two parties at any scale.
100% It’s all creating the illusion of choice. Money still funnels up. Imperialism grinds on.
Yes and no, there are stark differences between the parties still. That doesnt make the democrats good, but more like a hand grenade isnt as destructive as an ICBM.
Do they all serve moneyed interests? Yes. But that doesnt make them equal though by any stretch.