Democratic political strategy
You must log in or # to comment.
This could mean that there’s room on the left for a brand new party.
Only if America will implement proportional representation
It could if we weren’t locked into a two party system.
I mean, if there ever was a time for a grass roots growing of a third party, it would be NOW, not a year before the election with Putin-stooge Jill Stein.
I can agree with that, but I’m not sure it will happen. And like most people I’m too busy trying to keep a non-negative balance in the checkbook to do much about it.
There are plenty of people trying but it is clearly not working
This fails to recognize that for a very long time things trended left. I remember talking to someone in the 90s and we went down a list of major issues and the left had essentially won on all of them. Roe vs Wade EPA Gay Marriage Welfare Reform and Child Tax Credits
My hope for the Democratic party is that they go to a single issue for the next National election, and that issue should be Anti-trust/Breaking up monopolies
You’d need to explain how this helps the average person.
Bearing in mind that these employers have hundreds of thousands of people working for them, you would need to somehow ensure that people aren’t voting for a spike in unemployment.
FWIW I don’t disagree at all, but how would this be implemented in practice, and how would it be framed as a good thing for those employed by those companies?
Things should be progressing no? that’s the whole point of being the “progressive party”
That’s an important issue, but if Democrats ever see power again, it’ll be important to focus on re-enfranchisement (RCV, instant runoff, or anything fairer than FPTP; NPVIC; national mail voting; mandatory voting), on judicial reform to undo the corruption and incompetence that has been packed there. Without those, keeping any gains will be impossible.
Then, triaging existential threats is critical, which will mean fighting climate change, investing in public transport (trains), and breaking up trusts will have to be pursued simultaneously. Stopping any support for genocide needs to happen as soon as possible.
There will be plenty more structural changes to fix beyond that: Protecting whistleblowers and protesters, improving FOIA, replacing norms with laws (Emoluments Clause enforcement, financial records disclosure, no insider trading for Congressmembers, &c), and all manner of civil rights protections and police reform.
After all that, it’ll be time for the stuff I’ve been hoping for: nationalizing healthcare and Internet access, and copyright reform.
NPVIC ain’t going to happen. Not for at least another 40 years or so.
It was a great idea, but this (so-called) Supreme Court would absolutely shut it down in no time flat. The balance of this court isn’t likely to shift for a very, very long time.
The only solution to get rid of EC before then will be a massive movement that results in a constitutional amendment.
Tl/Dr: start pre-lubing your assholes now, they ain’t gonna help you there.
ETA: the funny thing about having to codify “norms” into law was that the expectation would be that government would be transparent enough, and press would be free enough, that lawmakers wouldn’t even think about shit like insider trading, because the risk of getting found out and the hit your reputation and career would take wouldnt be worth it.
Instead, ass hats celebrated it.
Adding seats to the court needs to happen, as well as reapportioning representatives, and giving electoral votes to DC and the territories. We need to find politicians that aren’t afraid to do it.
Sadly, support for genocide won’t be an issue by the midterms.
Remember back in the past, when Democrats were communists and Republicans were social Democrats? Oh wait, that never happened, this graph is nonsense
This is recent history, not all history, and FYI it is a meme not a scientific study.
Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man. You take a step towards him, he takes a step back. Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.
not saying i disagree, but people always link this article as though it even has a section on partisan politics. it doesn’t, or really even pose any evidence that suggests the effect applies to the overton window. would be curious if there are any sources that pose evidence.
i just read it and don’t think it applies here. the effect seems to apply to situations where the movement in one direction perpetuates itself, due to cyclic nature or outside influences.
if the democratic party wanted to, they could totally pull the overton window to the left. it’s not like there’s a perpetual demanded for the democratic party to move to the right; they just want to do it.
The Overton Window is set in an abandoned lot. The house burned down a long time ago.
The rightward shift of the GOP and the tendency of the seemingly infinite number of spineless Dem careerist politicians to seek compromise is very real, but please remember the 90s and 2000s, everyone. They were not as rosy and left-wing as you remember; while not nearly enough, the Dems are notably more left than they were then.
In the larger picture the rightward trend is kind of true on economic fronts.
But yeah, since the 90s we’ve slowly moved left.
Since the 90s we’ve moved left economically as well. The 90s were where the Dems had their massive neoliberal shift, after all. Not hard to be more left than THAT.
Right, that’s why I said in the larger picture. Before Reagan, taxing the rich and a living minimum wage were standard. Now it’s considered radical. But we’ve definitely moved back to the left since then.
Can you please explain what you mean exactly by “economic fronts?” Do you mean there are specific things they’re further right on than before, or that they’re further right on the economy as a whole? If the latter: what issues are you accounting for, and how are you turning their stances into a clean metric?
I mean taxing the rich and a livable minimum wage used to be acceptable. But due to the rightward slide, the tax rate from most of the 20th century and livable single income minimum wages would be considered radical now.
If I were to guess, I’d say, the left is winning on social fronts. IE Say topics like gay marriage, Partial legalization of pot etc… would never have even been on the table 40 years ago.
Now admitted, The current position of the pieces of the country is poised in a way that we are very likely to take huge backslides on those issues.
“Why isn’t anybody voting for us”
I think the question they ask is more like “why are people voting for the other side?” …leading to “we need to be more like them”
The problem is theres nothing on our side. Our choices are right of center and so far right they fell off the graph.
There’s also the choice of doing what Bernie did, and build up an alternative from the local level, but that would require people to realise that politics aren’t restricted to TV-level races nor snooze for 4 years.
If Americans did that in large scale they could to the democratic party the reverse of what the tea party did to the republican party.
The Democratic party hates Bernie though. Theyran so hard against him back in '16 and '20. I swear the Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than run an actual left candidate.
The democrats are still at their core a liberal party, and ultimately running a left candidate would be against their interests.
What’s really frustrating is the Dems just dont seem to have any vision of what they want. They clearly don’t want the dystopia of the Trump party, but aren’t really offering a vision of something different or a way things ought to be. (And they won’t be able to as long as they are trying to cater to workers as well as the Wall Street class at the same time.)
You are talking about “they” like the party is run by lizard people ruling by the divine right of kings. The “they” in the republican party also didn’t an obviously extreme right candidate and their base gave “them” the boot.
That’s because there are only a handful of “Bernies”. A party is not a monolithical block, it’s the sum of it’s members, and the centrists end up being in charge because they are the ones that end up representing the party at most levels. If you want to shift the balance you need leftists to run for school boards, and city halls, and build from there by starting taking over the state committees and DNC members elected by each state (which in turn control the DNC).
If even the most extreme of the extreme right managed to do it in the republican party, there’s no reason why a moderate left movement couldn’t do it in the democratic party - if anything I would expect it to be easier.
Well that would require people to actually go vote every time instead of just bitching online. Or discouraging everyone from voting by saying someone is “Republican light”
Or discouraging everyone from voting by saying someone is “Republican light”
I voted for Kamala. She was still Republican Light. It pissed me off watching her run to the right, it pissed me off having to vote for a Republican Light platform, it pissed me off that it lost her the election, and now we have fucking crazy man in the whitehouse again because they decided she needed to be more like R not less.
I’m not voting Republican Light again. Next time I’ll be one of the ones getting yelled at I guess. If we’re going to keep ratcheting right, I’m at least not going to support it.
deleted by creator
I’m not arguing what the actual issue is, just how they consider the issue.
Sorry, I misread your comment, I think I read first “they” as “to” or something. I agree with you, deleting my comment.
They only look at the votes that were cast not voters who stayed home
Always reach across the isle and punch nazis.
/genuine question, asides from the obvious of republicans adopting left policy, what would have to happen for another party switch to occur?
like, i know it happened once. wondering what circumstances and context brought that about and if that’s even a realistic framing to think about today’s world?
There is also the Whig party for reference. They were one of the two parties until they refused to take a meaningful stance on slavery. They were the ‘bipartisanship states rights solves it’ party versus the ‘pro-slavery’ party.
There is no longer a Whig party and the slavery party went to war over a decade or so after the anti slavery parry formed.
So there’s that alternative to Party switch.
I agree. I think we’re at the stage where the Democrats are the Whig party. They aren’t going to change, they need to be replaced with a true progressive party.
Assuming that we continue to be as much of a democracy as we were, now might be the time for that replacement to happen.
Knowing Better has a good video about the Party Switch, although I’m not sure it’s applicable to today
That’s a slope, not an aisle
Frankly the people are the ones moving further to the right because the state does not educate them and regulate corporate power, transforming the public into a myopic panicked herd.
That’s actually false. When it comes to policy preferences, the actual electorate swings pretty far left compared to the right wing and far right parties they can choose between. Universal health care, parental leave, paid sick leave, higher minimum wage all enjoy broad and firm popular support, and neither party is even talking about this.
If you read this study, it mentions people are prone to affective polarization, that is a state of mind that is in itself extreme and it’s related to people being myopic, that is governed by strong emotions such as panic instead of choosing rationally.
!! yea
always important to remember that the electorate’s preference in policy has only a loose relationship to who they vote for. this air gap is where most elections are fought, where strong messaging tightens the gap and messaging failures loosen it. the 2024 presidential election had a hella loose connection between party and people.
That connection is much less loose if you consider how right wing the democrats have gotten over the years. And beyond that, note that a big part of Harris’ loss is that her republican light “I’m basically Nikki Haley” campaign mainly reflects itself in people not voting for her. The statistics you mention (or the polls you base your comment on, not sure where it’s coming from) are presumably talking about voters, not the electorate. Harris’ inability to mobilize her base is the problem here, not republicans voting republican.
The statistics you mention … are presumably talking about voters, not the electorate.
nope. the electorate, when polled, shows popular support for progressive policies, and this is true even outside of exit polls.
not really sure what the rest of your comment is trying to say so i will leave it at clarifying that misconception. feel free to clarify if you are interested in further discussion i’m just a bit confused sorry.
just playin’ the long game. won’t be long now and it will loop around to the far left.
I always knew the political quadrant was, topologically speaking, shaped like a pacman game
So, everyone’s hoping for the bit overflow
The reverse Ghandi.
This guy civs
Yup, we just need to accelerate and we totally won’t end up in a fascist dystopia
Ah, so they are doing horseshoe theory in real life?
If there’s so much appetite for a progressive/socialist party in the USA, how come there isn’t one that gets a significant amount of financing and votes?
Because that wouldn’t be in the interest of the billionaire class so it’s actively suppressed. I mean, the government killed Malcolm X and MLK Jr. There’s no telling how many more. Look at the response to BLM or the pro-Palestinian protest in comparison to the Jan 6 traitors. The left are painted as radicals for wanting equality and healthcare, while the right gets a free pass on being pedophiles, con men, and foreign assets.
I’m talking about a party with a platform, doing an actual campaign to get people elected, not a protest movement.
Look at how much money Harris managed to get from regular people, you would believe the left would be able to organize more than just protests, that there would be the Republicans, the Democrats AND the Progressives (or whatever the name it would have)…
I volunteered for Bernie Sanders. His two runs for President (along with a long career) are probably as close as you can find to what a modern progressive party would look like.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=n00000528
He raised a lot of money, had very large rallies, and a lot of very passionate volunteers. But lost, and there’s two reasons why.
- First past the post spoiler effect - Bernie had to run as a Democrat within the Democratic Party primary system. If he had run as progressive or democratic socialist he would have split the democratic vote. In a first past the post system Duverger’s Law mathematically guarantees 2 party rule.
Any progressive alternative would split the democratic vote, and ensure that, at least for a while, the republicans would win every election. You can see on Lemmy and Reddit and all other kinds of social media the amount of anger and infighting this causes on the left. This is a strong disincentive for anyone to start an alternative party.
- The donor class - the Democratic Party is largely funded by big money donors. Big money donors have a lot of money because of how things are currently arranged. If the way the country works today has made you fabulously wealthy, even if that means a lot of people suffer, you tell yourself “they suffer because they don’t work hard like me” and want things to stay the way they are. So you donate to both parties to control them and make sure that whatever particular apple cart you’ve cornered doesn’t get overturned.
Every problem the American people face is a profit generator for some fuck face. Rent too high, some landlord is enjoying record profits. Can’t afford medicine, some pharmacy CEO is buying their third yacht. Those people have enough money to buy politicians, ads, political parties, media networks, social media companies, etc. They aren’t just going to sit back and let you fuck up their money making machine, they will deploy those assets against anyone that threatens the status quo.
Here’s a particularly egregious example coming from MSNBC during Bernie’s last run when his reforms threatened their wealth https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/chris-matthews-bernie-sanders-public-executions-949802/
So that’s what any progressive party is up against. The mathematical certainty that they would lose until they could unseat the current Democratic Party, something that would take some number of election cycles. The donor class wanting to thwart any change. And let’s say they do overcome both of those things. That party then becomes the thing the donors try to buy next. Your party starts with high minded ideals but one by one the members of your party get big paydays from the billionaires and suddenly they want to soften this reform and maybe hold off on that reform and… oh look they are holding the exact same positions as the current Democratic Party. Because those positions are the positions of the people that own the party, and they will happily buy another.
“The progressive alternative would split the Democratic vote”
But people keep talking about electors voting for the Democrats not by choice, but because it’s the only option left of the Republicans. If there are so many people who do it (or don’t vote due to a lack of option) like people keep repeating, then removing the Democrats from the equation shouldn’t be an issue, right? Budget or not, people choose where they put a checkmark.
What I’m getting at is that I don’t think there’s as much appetite for a progressive party in the USA as some people like to believe. There’s a far right party and a conservative party and, even though nature doesn’t like a void, no one bothers actually trying to fill up the empty space on the left. Hell, Sanders and AOC keep getting elected yet even they aren’t trying to get a Progressive party started, AOC is a Democrat and Sanders is an “independent” that keeps showing up at Democrat’s events.
We have data so that we don’t have to go with our guts
You can check out the vote totals
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
I would argue the 2016 is a better reflection, in 2020 there was a sort of coordinated drop out of centrist candidates on Super Tuesday as the establishment wing of the party threw their weight behind Biden.
But in either case the answer is that the Democratic Party is basically a coalition party of centrist Dems that seem to be fine with shifting further and further to the right and more progressive voters. In 2016 it was pretty evenly split so there is appetite just not enough for a viable party.
Ok, where’s the Progressive party then? If the existing parties are leaving such a huge part of the population without a party (based on what people are saying) then it should be a guaranteed win, right? Why don’t the progressives Democrats (and left wing independents) get together and tell the rest of the Democrats to fuck off? Sanders has a ton of support, you just proved it!
I’d refer you back to my first comment that explains the structural incentives and disincentives that prevent an alternative to the Democratic Party from emerging
I think the space doesn’t get gobbled because people prevent it from being gobbled, like OP says
If the game weren’t rigged, the space wouldn’t exist
This is the exact, desired outcome by the billionaires. Us arguing over how this is our fault for not voting correctly.
I’ve seen some interesting speculation that the Republican party’s embrace of Trump will be the death of the party once Trump passes on, and I’ve wondered what will happen. The US has always had 2 parties since the country’s conception, so I genuinely wonder if the Democratic Party will flip conservative again and either the Republicans will attack from the left as “New Republicans” or a new party will fill in the left-leaning gap they’ve left.
This makes sense at a macro scale but I simply can’t imagine a scenario at the micro scale that makes that happen. Most realistic scenario I can think of is that the Republicans fail to elect anyone (might get a seat or two still but not enough to be a viable party) for a cycle of two, the Democratic party stops trying as more career politicians move over from the Republican party and some popular Democrats splinter off to form a new party. But the things that have to happen for each of those steps to occur are pretty insurmountable.
Idk it’s an interesting thought experiment especially when trying to stay realistic and not just be a wet dream
The Left did organize. It was during the 2016 election season. Bernie Sanders was on his way to warning the endorsement for presidential frontrunner, when the DNC fucked him over.
There are a lot of monied interests looking to keep the working class split and divided by prohibiting a pro-labor candidate from reaching society at large.
Ok and how come a new party wasn’t created then? Sounds to me like the left is pretty comfy with the status quo!
“A vote for a third party is a vote for Trump.” etc.
First past the post makes us have to play by its rules. If it ever goes, new parties will pop.
We have first past the post in Canada and five parties that get people elected.
Well, since our two countries are identical in every way it only makes sense that we could snap our fingers and do the same here.
Campaigning in the US relies heavily on money from wealthy investors to get off the ground. Meaning, any new party that wants to get going needs approval from the wealthy to do so.
Additionally, a huge percentage of the population pays no attention to politics at all, just closing their eyes to the whole election and either not voting, or voting for the party they’ve always voted for every time, so even if your party managed to get some attention, it’d just be another 3rd party further fracturing what small portion of the population risks voting outside the 2 party system as it is.
In other to have a shot at winning, you’d need to somehow make enough money to afford competing with the 2 established parties for screen time, which would mean major corporate backing that would only happen if they liked your policies.
How cute, you guys are trying to rewrite it in your favor. Too bad the science says otherwise.
This just highlights how out of touch the DNC is from its own voter base. Those lines shifting left are the democratic voters, not their politicians. The democratic party has been constantly trying to pivot to the center and finding nothing but corporate donors.
“You guys” Bro the only us and them are billionaires and everyone else. Stop being distracted and focus on the problem, the fuckers siphoning any and all value away from honest hard working people and then blaming other less fortunate honest hard working people for it.
These stats are about the policy preferences of the electorate, while OP is about the politicians. But your picture is a fantastic illustration as to why the democrats lost the election. It’s because they keep moving further right (look for example at their recent pro-fracking, pro-border wall, pro-genocide presidential candidate).
“Pro border wall” the chart above would indicate that overall sentiment would be the opposite, less border wall more movement.
The chart shows democratic party voter opinion, not their politician’s opinions. Kamala basically ran on Trump’s 2016 border policy and earned zero votes because of it.
That is indeed what the chart indicates.
Too bad the science says otherwise.
Graphs say exactly what they say. Nothing more, nothing less. These graphs don’t say otherwise.
“Look, it goes left”. No, it goes up, graphs were just rotated. These graphs don’t say otherwise.
