politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Then become one of the two parties.
There already are two. We must co-opt one with a populist candidate. The Republican Party was already hijacked by Trump. That leaves the Democratic Party.
Bernie tried twice, Democrats demonstrated their ability to stop that shit in its tracks. It will not work.
The only solution is for progressives to abandon the Party and start their own to replace it. The US has replaced parties before, it can be done again.
The Democrat establishment wants power and for that they have to win elections. So having an anti establishment candidate is preferable to them over a Republicans victory. If anything good came out of the last election, it is that Trump as horrible as he is can still win elections against an establishment Democrat, so the Democrats have to change.
Also changing the parties does not work. The problem is systematic and the US really needs to change its election system, to get better politics.
They sure didn't look like they wanted to win this election.
They switch candidates in the middle of the campaign, because Biden's polling was that bad.
And then Harris did everything she could to reassure everyone she was exactly like Biden, completely defeating the strategy.
Trump tried once and it worked. Neoliberal ideas are entrenched in the minds of Americans. Neoliberalism only allows change to the people in charge of systems as it asserts, incorrectly, that our institutions are flawless. Since neoliberals only consider changing people, it is much easier for a fascist to convince a neoliberal to change the people in society. Where as it is much harder for a progressive or a socialist to convince a neoliberal to enact systemic change or redistribute wealth respectively.
In short, people with neoliberal ideas in their head need to fully internalize neoliberalism as a scam.
Abandoning the Democrats will not result in them being replaced. They will continue to exist by moving further to the right, as Democrats like Chris Murphy have already proposed.
Starting a successful third party is mathematically impossible under a FPTP system. Third party candidates can only be spoiler candidates.
Where's the Whig Party?
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/18581056/11578151
The Democrats are divided over Israel. Something like 80 House members boycotted Netanyahu's speech, and the Party base is overwhelmingly anti-genocide. That's enough to get the ball rolling.
It's not enough. The House elections happen every two years. AIPAC can successfully primary progressive politicians if we don't vote for them.
https://apnews.com/article/squad-aipac-progressives-congress-cori-bush-0de0a96929368db72145b033261415ca
Murphy spells it out. Democrats are moving to the right to get people who aren't 100% with them on social and cultural issues. There is a huge base of people in the US that support Israel. And they tend to be consistent older voters.
https://apnews.com/article/squad-aipac-progressives-congress-cori-bush-0de0a96929368db72145b033261415ca
https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/aging/articles/why-older-citizens-are-more-likely-to-vote
Democrats moving to the right are only going to lose more and more voters, because the only reason people vote for them is because they aren't as far to the right as Republicans. It sure looks like moving to the right cost Harris the election, they're destroying their only appeal.
And those voters that they lose will be looking for a new party, because they won't let themselves be dragged to the right. So while the Democrats destroy their own party it makes perfect sense for progressives to abandon ship and reform into a new party to replace them.
This is all academic, of course. In reality we might not be able to vote ever again lol
It will definitely lose them progressive votes. And it probably won't gain them many conservative votes. But the Democrats are still going to try anyway. They look at who voted and chase those people's votes. edit: typo
Most of the country wants a new party, but our FPTP system mathematically guarantees they will never get it.
=/
Third party doesn’t work. You have to do what trump did, 1 man coup from the inside.
Apparently Republican voters are gonna set the mark at R regardless of who it is, so how about having someone like Bernie run in the Republican primary.
It didn't work with Bernie for more reasons than the parties resistance. A lot of people on the left that dislike the party don't seem to understand that you still have to join the party and get involved with it if you want the party to move left. Party members and active involved people shape where the party goes. We absolutely can shift the Dems left, but it means holding our noses and becoming the party. The Dems have always been an open door, big tent, party. Walk into the tent and change minds...
The Dems didn't let a single Palestinian-American speak at the DNC this year. The tent is big enough for Cheney, not us.
Yeah, the Dems are made up of scared moderates, because the left has completely abandoned politics and conceded all their power. If you want the party to move left, become the party. It really isn't mystical or complicated, power goes to those that take it. The left would rather stand on the outside looking in be cause at least they can complain and blame everyone else but themselves.
I tried to run for a small local position with the DNC using one of their arms that is for "funding and supporting small progressives" well that first bit is a lie. First question they asked me was how much money I had and if I had rich family to fund my campaign.
I told them not really but I would rather talk policy and maybe alternatives to spending money and they told me to pretend to be religious to find a good church to get donations from cause there are some rich churches.
I told them I was a Buddhist and happy for it, and they suggested I either find some other wealthy Buddhists cause they were sure I should be able to find some or maybe I should consider not running at all and just donating to this group or volunteering for free to them.
This will take acceptance and support from the people that run the party and all the wealthy party owners that view themselves better than working class because of their connections and wealth.
I've worked for the party and even helped recruit candidates. Some of what you're writing here seems very inconsistent with how we did things at least in Minnesota and Wisconsin. No one would ever address religion or social class at all here. And funding your own campaign is usually a fools errand, because raising money helps people become invested in your campaign.
But candidates are still expected to fundraise in some way shape or form. You can't be a viable candidate in today's world without money. Until elections are publicly funded and banned from raising their own money, money will always be necessary. The ability to fundraise also proves viability, people that raise money show people are quite literally invested in your campaign, making them statistically likely to vote and more likely to volunteer for 'get out the vote' efforts.
I understand all that but instead of starting with ways to start naturally and get your name out there it was directly to money. No, conversation on anything else. Just a dollar threshold for us to hit or get out of their hair.
This was with the "run for something" group while in Florida. But there was definitely people from other states and they were all equally disturbed at the immediate grilling for us to fund ourselves and to be in a major religion.
I do get that it seems ass backwards and incompatible with how a person would actually run for a local position and it's why a lot of people have become disenfranchised by the whole system and party.
It's like the state has deep pride in their idiocy.
Oh sure. And I left but the group I worked with is national and as they brag the largest entry point for new candidates and they weren't the state.
Florida just ends up an easy excuse to ignore that it's millions of people experiencing situations closer to mine.
It's not like Florida was a swing state or anything with a huge population and economy.
Do you mind me asking, what was the group recruiting?
I think you mean popular, not populist, but yes.
No, I mean populist. Populism is what is popular right now.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/populism
Trump didn’t run on any economic populism this year and won. Kamala did, and lost. It’s the electorate stupid!
She scrubbed all economic populism from her campaign in the last couple months and pivoted to campaigning with neoconservatives.
She literally went all out on her economic agenda the last 2 weeks of her campaign.
Where were the price controls to control price gouging? Where were the rent controls to fight corporate landlords and their price fixing? She mentioned this stuff once back in August and then that part of her agenda got really quiet for some reason.
She brought that up in one of her last town halls. And if she already said it, and it was well known, what’s the issue? Remember Trump’s platinum plan.
Did she? I didn't hear about that.
And if she doesn't mention it more than once, people interpret that as her not being serious. Telling people "It's on the website!" is terrible campaign strategy.
Trump ran on a populist platform that wasn't limited to economic populism. Harris didn't have any compelling narrative whatsoever.
It's worth while for the electorate to learn the right lessons. Otherwise there wouldn't be people in this comment section trying to get everyone to learn the wrong lessons.
Agreed, but all the other talking points from Trump weren’t populist, just do whistles
Trump's populism is christian nationalism. Specifically white christian nationalism. So it's not going to look Bernie's populism. And those do whistles are, or at least were before they became so overt, dog whistles.