• Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Not necessarily. The MAGA crowd took over the GOP. The same could be done for the DNC, but with actual leftists and election reformists.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        There are several reasons why the MAGA crowd were allowed to take over the GOP. First, because they weren’t pushovers, if the party had tried shenanigans to stop them there was a real possibility of people defecting from the party en masse, and even of violence at the convention. Second, because the things they wanted weren’t really all that contrary to what the rich donors wanted.

        The Democratic base is much more weak willed and willing to go along with whatever to stop the right. We don’t have enough of that Karen energy, that “my way or the highway” attitude. And election reform is directly contrary to the interests of the establishment, and the aim of prioritizing ordinary people over the rich goes against the interests of the doners. They’ll crush any internal movement in that direction, and people will still vote for them because of “vote blue no matter who” and lesser evilist ideology.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          First, because they weren’t pushovers, if the party had tried shenanigans to stop them there was a real possibility of people defecting from the party en masse, and even of violence at the convention.

          I think this overstates where things were at when Trump first got nominated during the GOP primary in 2016. If Trump had lost that, they just as easily could have voted red anyways. Republicans have been doing it for decades, they use their geriatric & evangelical blocs to strong arm their nominee to the presidency regardless of who it is.

          Second, because the things they wanted weren’t really all that contrary to what the rich donors wanted.

          Sure, but a lot of the time DNC candidates do things that the rich donors hate. Biden’s cap on insulin prices is a good example of that. There will always be pushback on good policy. Complaining doesn’t get us anywhere.

          The Democratic base is much more weak willed and willing to go along with whatever to stop the right.

          This is only really relevant for the actual elections. This effect isn’t nearly as strong in the primaries where it counts and is needed.

          And election reform is directly contrary to the interests of the establishment, and the aim of prioritizing ordinary people over the rich goes against the interests of the doners. They’ll crush any internal movement in that direction

          Look, either we work within the system to make things better, or we have a violent revolution. There isn’t much of a middle option. And I can pretty much guarantee you that a violent revolution would be the worse option given that it is a militarized police state with citizen tracking out the ass.

          If every single leftist wins their DNC primary, the DNC doesn’t have much of a choice but to run with them. That’s how you get better candidates like AOC/Summer Lee/Jamaal Bowman, etc. They aren’t perfect by any means, but they are a hell of a lot more to the left than the DNC is. And I can tell you the DNC fuckin hates having said candidates within their party. But they suck it up and deal with it.

          It is very much possible to get more candidates like that, but it requires focus on the primaries, just like the MAGA crowd did.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            This is only really relevant for the actual elections. This effect isn’t nearly as strong in the primaries where it counts and is needed.

            The DNC has literally testified in court that they don’t have to abide by the results of their primaries because they aren’t real elections. They don’t even have to hold primaries at all. The primary process is a joke and people who want genuine change won’t be allowed to win, it’s a dead end.

            Look, either we work within the system to make things better, or we have a violent revolution. There isn’t much of a middle option.

            There is, actually. Ditching the party and moving to a new one, for starters.

            • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              The DNC has literally testified in court that they don’t have to abide by the results of their primaries because they aren’t real elections. They don’t even have to hold primaries at all. The primary process is a joke and people who want genuine change won’t be allowed to win, it’s a dead end.

              Yet the candidates I named won their congressional seats.

              There is, actually. Ditching the party and moving to a new one, for starters.

              And that’s how you get the spoiler effect, and another round of fascist SCOTUS appointments for the next few decades, a fascist president, project 2025, etc.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                And that’s how you get the spoiler effect, and another round of fascist SCOTUS appointments for the next few decades, a fascist president, project 2025, etc.

                Unless enough people do it.

                • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Which will not happen. Millions of people are not going to suddenly change their two party voting behavior, as it has been established for well over a century at this point, because the system itself is the problem.

                  You are gambling with peoples lives if you vote 3rd party.

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Won’t stop me from trying. If a third party gains enough strength, they could at least leverage an endorsement in exchange for concessions, while at the same time challenging the belief that they’re useless.

                    It’s true that lesser-evilist ideology has a vice grip on most Americans, so it’s an uphill battle. But it’s an incorrect ideology, and one that’s going to screw me over sooner or later, so I can’t accept it. I’d rather play the longshot, unless and until the democrats are actually willing to come to the negotiating table.