Summary
Progressive Democrats accused Donald Trump and Elon Musk of orchestrating a “constitutional crisis” after Musk moved to shut down USAID and gained access to a federal payment system.
Lawmakers, blocked from entering USAID’s headquarters, condemned Trump for granting Musk unchecked power over government functions.
Senator Elizabeth Warren warned that Musk’s involvement could trigger financial instability, while Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called it a “plutocratic coup.”
Problem is that if the DNC splits, both parties will be even weaker than they are now
The Democrats don’t have to field a candidate if they’re that worried about splitting the vote.
It’s not like they try to win anyway.
The Democrats will field one on purpose to sabotage us. They don’t mind losing if it means a progressive won’t win.
If anything they’d be relieved to no longer have to play heel to the Republican party.
Yeah, but that won’t last forever. Give progressive dems a chance to campaign in earnest for their platform, without the chains of establishment pro-corporate policies around their necks, and you might be surprised how quickly the 90-million non-voters come around.
Good. I’d rather know what the score is with the actual, entire, electorate than left to yet another situation where a huge number of people just stood by.
I strongly believe that the vast majority are quite far left, and stand by in abject horror at how far rightward the establishment politicians and mainstream media have dragged the Overton window. We really needed something like the Voting Rights Act from Biden admin, but much more - chase down eligible voters and make them vote, just like in Australia. Anyway, agreed with you - it would be nice to know for certain where the country actually stands on policy.
A valid concern.
I strongly recommend looking at what the Polish did. We can have multiple movements all trying to influence outcomes. They don’t even need their own candidates, they just have to endorse ones that party elsewhere or have a chance of being picked up by a major coalition (e.g. Sanders, AOC). Over time, that movement gains traction and notoriety, further influencing elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Initiative
Yes, because of First Past The Post voting.
Say there’s a region that’s 60% left-leaning and 40% right-leaning. If the far left splits off from the moderate left, you get 30% far left, 30% moderate left, and 40% right-leaning. The winner in a FPTP election is the party with the most votes. Even though 60% of the voters are still left-leaning, the election will go to the right-leaning party with 40% of the votes. Their 40% beats either of the parties with 30% of the vote.
Canada experienced this phenomenon in the 1993 federal election. The conservatives previously had a majority, but there was a split, and the Reform Party split from the Progressive Conservative party. There were almost as many right-leaning voters as before, but the Liberals won a huge victory. Because of the vote split, a lot of conservative ridings ended up electing a Liberal MP.
Basically, if you care about progressive politics, get rid of First Past The Post. Only once it’s gone should you consider splitting the party. Splitting the party while FPTP is in place is just handing victory to the GOP.