news Democrats prepare to go to war against third party candidates

[toxicgenie]

13 hours ago, Caesar said:

if biden/dems wants to win he’d win with policy people actually want. running a campaign saying he’s better than the opposition isn’t a good re-election campaign 

Both of them have been president. If you feel both terms were similar that's on you. 

[toxicgenie]

2 minutes ago, GraceRandolph said:

Memeing it won't change the reality that the US electoral system is built around two parties. 

[GraceRandolph]

3 minutes ago, toxicgenie said:

Memeing it won't change the reality that the US electoral system is built around two parties. 

Where does the constitutions mention 2 political parties?

[Miss Show Business]

They have a right to discourage third parties. Vote splitting is real, especially in the US.

 

A lot of people have still apparently not accepted that we are a 2 party system. Does this suck? 100%. Is it going to change any time soon, realistically? No chance in hell. Ironically, the real way to challenge this is by introducing ranked choice voting, and where has this been initiated? Democratic strongholds like San Francisco.

 

I understand being frustrated. But what will it take to look at the bigger picture and to see how f***ed vulnerable minorities would be if 45 got a second term? Especially at this point where the effects of his first awful term are still being felt.

 

I really do try my damnedest to understand. But for me the big picture is clear, and I would vote for just about anybody over 45.

[byzantium]

21 minutes ago, Miss Show Business said:

Ironically, the real way to challenge this is by introducing ranked choice voting, and where has this been initiated? Democratic strongholds like San Francisco.

In 2020 RCV was on the ballot in Alaska and Massachusetts.  Alaska voted for it but Massachusetts rejected it.  

[Thesedays]

7 hours ago, CandleGuy said:

Do people regret losing federal abortion rights and having the Supreme Court be conservative for decades to come?

 

Do people not understand the implications of Hillary's loss?

Federal abortion rights were lost during Biden's tenure.

[Thesedays]

5 hours ago, Ryan said:

I’m sorry, does Biden run Israel? Cause I could have sworn they have their own president and government over there.

It's 2024, and US Americans still pretend like they don't know it's their country financing Israel.

 

Imagine being so ill-informed.

[Aston Martin]

8 hours ago, CandleGuy said:

Do people regret losing federal abortion rights and having the Supreme Court be conservative for decades to come?

 

Do people not understand the implications of Hillary's loss?

If Hillary won in 2016, she would've entered 2017 with a Republican majority Senate and House. It would've been 4 years of electoral gridlock. I'm sure ***** McTurtle would've found a way to continue blocking judicial appointments, the blue wave of 2018 probably wouldn't have happened because there wouldn't have been Trump to drive up Dem turnout in the midterms, RBG would've still died in office, and Hillary probably would've lost 2020 to a Republican as a result. The 46th President's victory in this scenario (Trump or someone else) would've pulled enough Repubs over the finish line in congressional races, and with a majority in both houses and the presidency, that they would've done the same things that they're doing now and more (stacking the SC and other judiciary positions, overturning Roe, and probably federally banning abortion, birth control, gender affirming care, IVF, and same sex marriage because Dems would be unable to stop them in any of the 3 branches of government).

 

In order to have prevented any of this from happening, we would've needed a Democratic candidate in 2016 that not only could've won in the midwestern swing states, but also driven enough turnout down ballot to at least win the senate so he/she could've stacked the court with liberal justices. I personally think that was Bernie, and you may disagree. That's fine. But it clearly wasn't Hillary and I don't think a Hillary presidency would've resulted in a future that's that different from our current timeline. 

 

ot: run popular candidates that actually increase voter turnout in key demographics that helped Dems win in 2020. Biden and co don't seem to be doing this. 

[slimfem]

21 hours ago, BGKC said:

A true democracy requires third parties. Third party ideologies are what led to the abolishment of slavery for example when it came to the 1840s Liberty Party, a third party dedicated to the immediate abolishment of slavery. Telling people they’re wasting a vote for trying to change the status-quo in a two party system bought up by corporations and weapon manufacturers is the biggest threat to democracy. You can’t blame people for not wanting to be complicit in war crimes or genocide by simply making the attempt to change the status quo. It should actually be encouraged en mass, especially when the libertarian party takes plenty more votes away from Trump as well. 

So many terrible takes in here encouraging 3rd party voting and anti Biden.. we are truly COOKKED bc of people like you! You’re delusional if you think Trumpers are going to vote 3rd party! We’re going end up in a theocratic dictatorship where they might line us up in the streets and slaughter us in the name of their sky daddy, and the blood will be on all your hands. Let’s hope Canada and Europe will open their borders to asylum seekers cause you all have lost the plot.

[ClashAndBurn]

8 minutes ago, slimfem said:

So many terrible takes in here encouraging 3rd party voting and anti Biden.. we are truly COOKKED bc of people like you! You’re delusional if you think Trumpers are going to vote 3rd party! We’re going end up in a theocratic dictatorship where they might line us up in the streets and slaughter us in the name of their sky daddy, and the blood will be on all your hands. Let’s hope Canada and Europe will open their borders to asylum seekers cause you all have lost the plot.

You all said exactly this last time when Hillary lost. It isn’t working anymore.

[toxicgenie]

4 hours ago, byzantium said:

In 2020 RCV was on the ballot in Alaska and Massachusetts.  Alaska voted for it but Massachusetts rejected it.  

Look at it comprehensively and see if there are patterns.

[toxicgenie]

5 hours ago, GraceRandolph said:

Where does the constitutions mention 2 political parties?

To win the federal election someone needs 270+ electoral votes. No 3rd party has a shot at this in modern times. If that doesn't happen the House gets to pick the president, so we would get a Republican.

 

In Congress, the senate and house are divided based on majority and minority. Any indy member has no choice but to join one of the sides in congress if they want to get anything done. This is just how the US political system is designed. 

 

 

[CandleGuy]

1 hour ago, Thesedays said:

Federal abortion rights were lost during Biden's tenure.

Because of the Supreme Court Justices appointed by Trump, who would not have been appointed under Hilary. 

[Communion]

51 minutes ago, Aston Martin said:

If Hillary won in 2016, she would've entered 2017 with a Republican majority Senate and House. It would've been 4 years of electoral gridlock. I'm sure ***** McTurtle would've found a way to continue blocking judicial appointments, the blue wave of 2018 probably wouldn't have happened because there wouldn't have been Trump to drive up Dem turnout in the midterms, RBG would've still died in office, and Hillary probably would've lost 2020 to a Republican as a result. The 46th President's victory in this scenario (Trump or someone else) would've pulled enough Repubs over the finish line in congressional races, and with a majority in both houses and the presidency, that they would've done the same things that they're doing now and more (stacking the SC and other judiciary positions, overturning Roe, and probably federally banning abortion, birth control, gender affirming care, IVF, and same sex marriage because Dems would be unable to stop them in any of the 3 branches of government).

 

In order to have prevented any of this from happening, we would've needed a Democratic candidate in 2016 that not only could've won in the midwestern swing states, but also driven enough turnout down ballot to at least win the senate so he/she could've stacked the court with liberal justices. I personally think that was Bernie, and you may disagree. That's fine. But it clearly wasn't Hillary and I don't think a Hillary presidency would've resulted in a future that's that different from our current timeline. 

 

ot: run popular candidates that actually increase voter turnout in key demographics that helped Dems win in 2020. Biden and co don't seem to be doing this. 

This is the core issue of trying to place the onus on voters and non-voters like liberals do. The current unfolding of politics is the contradictions of capitalism riding out their natural course for as long as the system we live in is self-perpetuating. There's no scenario where running a conservative neolib Dem like Clinton ever ends in anything but the further eroding of American society - whether she loses in 2016 due to crushing the spirit of the working class by scolding them or in 2020 after crushing their spirits via a failed presidency.

 

The battle is ideological and these are the innate, inevitable outcomes of a neoliberal capitalist system. The rot inside of Dems must be purged to save it as a political party.

[Communion]

39 minutes ago, slimfem said:

You’re delusional if you think Trumpers are going to vote 3rd party! 

So you agree - conservatives are ideological voters who will never leave Trump and Biden's failed strategy of moving to the right & abandoning poor people, young people, queer people, and POC in order to court this mythological Never Trump GOP Biden voters is costing us the election.

[Communion]

18 minutes ago, CandleGuy said:

Because of the Supreme Court Justices appointed by Trump, who would not have been appointed under Hilary. 

Maybe Democrats should have actively worked to engage voters on issue they cared about instead of... whatever this was.

 

 

[ClashAndBurn]

35 minutes ago, CandleGuy said:

Because of the Supreme Court Justices appointed by Trump, who would not have been appointed under Hilary. 

Who would’ve been appointed under Hillary while Mitch McConnell continued to run the Senate? If Hillary had lucked out and won, we’d still be in the same spot we are in now. Why? Because the two vacancies from the deaths of Scalia and RBG would have been held open for a Republican president who would have defeated Hillary in a landslide in 2020. Enthusiasm for Democrats was literally at rock bottom until Donald Trump won in 2016.

[XDNA]

14 minutes ago, Communion said:

Maybe Democrats should have actively worked to engage voters on issue they cared about instead of... whatever this was.

 

 

So you don't think voters have any responsibility for making informed decisions? Especially privileged voters with a college education?

 

You're posting these random things, like yes every campaign has cringe skits to get their supporters motivated.  Also no campaign is perfect or will ever be.

 

If you want to feel self-righteous by supporting a non-winnable candidate just so you don't vote Biden that's fine. Just come out and say that. But you'd also be a Trump MAGA-enabler. 

[Communion]

Just now, XDNA said:

So you don't think voters have any responsibility for making informed decisions? 

I think political candidates have the responsibility to visit states that they hope to win.

 

[XDNA]

2 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said:

Who would’ve been appointed under Hillary while Mitch McConnell continued to run the Senate? If Hillary had lucked out and won, we’d still be in the same spot we are in now. Why? Because the two vacancies from the deaths of Scalia and RBG would have been held open for a Republican president who would have defeated Hillary in a landslide in 2020. Enthusiasm for Democrats was literally at rock bottom until Donald Trump won in 2016.

You don't know that. You're literally saying "what ifs" to scenarios.

 

And regardless, Democrats won the popular vote in 2016. So I guess by your logic Republican enthusiasm was even lower.

 

 

[XDNA]

1 minute ago, Communion said:

I think political candidates have the responsibility to visit states that they hope to win.

 

I don't disagree on this point. However you keep changing subjects I don't understand what your angle is other than wanting to be a contrarian. 

[alexrex]

That bipartisan system in the US is pretty much a joke. It limits the choice of thinking, it supports a corrupt establishment and it erases the voice of many others who want to contribute to a better country. 

 

Sometimes you just get what you deserve. So maybe the US deserves a second Trump period, or another failed Biden one. 

 

Maybe that will wake people up. 

Edited March 16 by alexrex

[GraceRandolph]

15 minutes ago, XDNA said:

So you don't think voters have any responsibility for making informed decisions? 

What if a voter makes an informed choice to vote third party? 

[Communion]

1 minute ago, XDNA said:

However you keep changing subjects

I'm sorry but you're appearing out of your depth here. I get why liberals, even affluent ones who approach politics as more of a privilege 'stan' wars thing, want to see the good in voting. And how they're tangled up inside over the fact that Biden - the nominee forced on everyone - is purposefully tossing this to Trump.

 

I'm sympathetic, but that sympathy runs short when it takes just 5 minutes of having discussed politics online to know why the arguments you're putting forth are incoherent.

 

No one is "changing subjects". You're simply unable to address the reality put in front of you.

- There is no evidence that 3rd party voters cost Democrats electoral victories because 3rd party voters are far too ideological to be swing voters

- Democrats are quite literally burning money on anti-democratic efforts to ban said 3rd parties from ballots like they continue to do

- Biden is more likely to 'lose to the couch' via non-voters (disproportionately poor POC) staying home because of his pivot to the right to court rich suburbanites

- Clinton's loss in 2016 shows this reality as having already occurred, with her loss literally being because poor black Wisconsinites decided to stay home

- Representational affluent signifiers like Clinton did and right-wing affluent signifiers like Biden is doing similarly do nothing to rally the Dem base

- Just as the onus for her own loss was on Clinton's shoulders, Biden's loss will be his sole responsibility for prioritizing his own Zionism over his base

 

I'm sorry you're clearly upset that Biden is an awful candidate and is even going further than 2020, now intentionally destroying the very coalition that won him 2020.

[RoseBud]

  Trump is ready to assume the title as our dictator and so all these silly arguments over how we vote won't even matter.  That option will be gone.

 

It's up to us alone, and if we vote for the end of democracy we will have deserved it.  It's as simple as that !