Vote for the Democratic nominee against the GOP in the general election.
If you live somewhere the Dems tend to win elections, vote in the Democratic primaries to change the party little by little.
If you live somewhere the GOP tends to win, vote in the GOP primaries to try and at least get rid of the MAGA Republicans and THEN vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election.
Gradual incrementalism is precisely what got us into this mess, so it isn’t that simple. So long as the Dems are controlled by their donors, they will never willingly let an actual leftist in. See Mamdani. Ratchet effect then ensures both parties grow ever rightward.
We need meaningful leftist opposition in power if the US is going to survive. I think transforming the DNC into that is a much more difficult task than anyone cares to admit, and the delusion that we can do it without forming a new party entirely is just bringing us closer to inevitable collapse once the capital owners have stolen everything from us.
The single most successful third party presidential candidate since 1900 was Teddy Roosevelt, who had already been president twice, when he ran under the Bull Moose Party ticket. He got 29% of the popular vote, spilt the Republican vote, and handed the presidency to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
The second most successful third party presidential candidate since 1900 was Ross Perot in 1992. He got 18.6% of the popular vote, drew conservative voters away from George H. W. Bush, and handed the presidency to Bill Clinton.
Third party candidates by all means should run for local and down-ballot offices, but above a certain level, if you haven’t got a realistic plan for how to win beyond wishful thinking, then the responsible move is to run as hard as you can in the primary, try to drag the primary electorate in the direction you want it to move, and endorse the major party candidate that most closely aligns with your views. If you aren’t even hitting twenty percent in the polls leading up to the general, then you’re acting as a spoiler and helping your most-hated opponent win.
Gradual incrementalism is precisely what got us into this mess
What got us into this mess was the resounding success of gradual incrementalism in the hands of the right. We didn’t get where we are spontaneously, it’s the result of decades of preparation by the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.
in most states, you have to register with one party or the other for primaries, so you can only vote in one primary. But in the general election, you aren’t required to cast a ballot for the party for which you’re registered.
It’s simple.
Vote for the Democratic nominee against the GOP in the general election.
If you live somewhere the Dems tend to win elections, vote in the Democratic primaries to change the party little by little.
If you live somewhere the GOP tends to win, vote in the GOP primaries to try and at least get rid of the MAGA Republicans and THEN vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election.
Gradual incrementalism is precisely what got us into this mess, so it isn’t that simple. So long as the Dems are controlled by their donors, they will never willingly let an actual leftist in. See Mamdani. Ratchet effect then ensures both parties grow ever rightward.
We need meaningful leftist opposition in power if the US is going to survive. I think transforming the DNC into that is a much more difficult task than anyone cares to admit, and the delusion that we can do it without forming a new party entirely is just bringing us closer to inevitable collapse once the capital owners have stolen everything from us.
Please, inform us plebs on how not voting for the Democratic nominee will help improve things.
No what got us here is no one voting. Literally go look at participation between elections.
Why is no one voting? Could it be that making people choose between 2 shit candidates doesn’t work?
The single most successful third party presidential candidate since 1900 was Teddy Roosevelt, who had already been president twice, when he ran under the Bull Moose Party ticket. He got 29% of the popular vote, spilt the Republican vote, and handed the presidency to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.
The second most successful third party presidential candidate since 1900 was Ross Perot in 1992. He got 18.6% of the popular vote, drew conservative voters away from George H. W. Bush, and handed the presidency to Bill Clinton.
Third party candidates by all means should run for local and down-ballot offices, but above a certain level, if you haven’t got a realistic plan for how to win beyond wishful thinking, then the responsible move is to run as hard as you can in the primary, try to drag the primary electorate in the direction you want it to move, and endorse the major party candidate that most closely aligns with your views. If you aren’t even hitting twenty percent in the polls leading up to the general, then you’re acting as a spoiler and helping your most-hated opponent win.
You explained this well. You should copy and paste it into every post about Dems vs lefts vs liberals.
What got us into this mess was the resounding success of gradual incrementalism in the hands of the right. We didn’t get where we are spontaneously, it’s the result of decades of preparation by the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.
It works, you just have to commit to it.
Aren’t you locked in to the party you’re registered with, specifically to avoid this scenario?
in most states, you have to register with one party or the other for primaries, so you can only vote in one primary. But in the general election, you aren’t required to cast a ballot for the party for which you’re registered.
Interesting, thank you!