AOC loses key vote in House Oversight race to Gerry Connolly
AOC loses key vote in House Oversight race to Gerry Connolly
You're viewing a single thread.
AOC should abandon the Democratic party. She should join Bernie as an god-damned Independent.
She and Bernie should start a progressive party.
I'm tired of Democrats bowing to oligarchs.
I read that as Democrats blowing oligarchs... Same feel tho
Look up the spoiler effect to learn why they don't.
We're already spoiled due to a fucking useless DNC. A complete replacement is warranted at this point.
Replacement takes years, during which it's spoiling every race and letting us slip into fascism.
Democrats have been spoiling every race and letting us slip into fascism, so we might as well try something different, right?
Doing the same thing they are doesn't seem like it's doing anything different...
We're already in the age of an authoritarian oligarchy.
Do you think this is the worst it could get?
Republicans have the majority in all 3 houses and it's 4 years until the next presidential election. When should they be trying to reform things?
Worth a try since the Democrats are worthless spineless losers anyway.
Be fair. They're not spineless. They just choose to show that spine when opposing anyone to the left of Netanyahu.
Worrying about the spoiler effect is why were here in the first place.
They can worry about the spoiler effect... Or they can worry about the massive amount of people who don't vote because they feel it's pointless or barely muster enough care to do it.
The fact that these experienced politicians whose judgment you appear to trust, have both decided to work within the existing system should probably sway your opinion of what the optimal strategy is at least a bit more.
There are usually two parties because the game-theoretic dynamic of this electoral system has a significant channelizing effect on the likeliest outcomes. Once you've accepted that reality, the (admittedly unsatisfying) optimal strategy becomes apparent.
I say this all with zero rancor - I do not like these arguments either, but the logic of it is difficult to see past. I would prefer the system be overthrown entirely but, and this is key, you go into the revolution with the populace that exists - and they're going to have their own ideas for what comes next. I'm not so sure I'd like what they bring to the table.
The fact that these experienced politicians whose judgment you appear to trust, have both decided to work within the existing system should probably sway your opinion of what the optimal strategy is at least a bit more.
I like them but would I don't think I would consider them that successful in respective of their peers. This system is literally against them being successful.
That's so.
A career in politics hasn't attracted much high quality talent in general, I think they'd be more successful if there was more of a sense of politics being a good option for good people. It mainly attracts scum these days.
Unfortunately, you are correct. Politicians [in general, not all of them] suck.
Nobody needs to worry about people who don't vote.
"You don't vote" is what Democrats say to anyone they don't want to listen to, regardless of whether they actually vote.
Democrats need to listen to people who vote.
But the person I replied to said they also need to worry about nonvoters. They don't. Nonvoters don't matter.
If they follow that logic they'll never win, because the number of people who will unconditionally vote Dem is demonstrably not enough to win an election.
They don't care about winning if it means lowering themselves to the level of trying to court voters.
They court voters all the time. They don't court nonvoters.
For the same reason, campaigns don't depend on getting youth to finally turn out to vote. It's a strategy that has never worked.
They court voters all the time. They don’t court nonvoters.
They conveniently designate those they don't want to listen to as nonvoters, and pay no actual attention to whether the demographics they ignore are voters or not. "They don't vote" is a pretext and has never been anything else.
Democrats won over 200 federal elections last month. Believe it or not, Harris was not the only Democrat on the ballot.
That 200 wasn't enough to keep the Senate or win the House so I'm not sure what your point is.
When it's time to decide on policy, they don't. When assigning blame, they're the only thing that matters.
But they are always conveniently whoever the party doesn't want to listen to.
The vast majority of nonvoters are politically disengaged, and there's no evidence that their opinions differ significantly from those of voters.
Ok. So don't gripe when the groups you don't pursue because "they don't vote" don't vote. And especially don't gripe when they prove you wrong by voting for your second choice.
If they vote for my second choice, then by definition they aren't nonvoters.
The spoiler effect will work in the short term, but if a progressive party can oust the DNC in even a few states Congress should look a lot different to how it is now. A bit of pain is worth it to escape the slow death promised by the DNC.
We're not really in a position to sacrifice the short term to fascists right now
Stares at the election results I don't think they needed to wait for anyone to sacrifice anything.
My point is we shouldn't also be sacrificing the short term, because the wealthy elite in the dnc don't care, they win either way. We don't. Ousting them is less destructive than ignoring the biggest flaw of first past the post election systems
My point is we shouldn't also be sacrificing the short term, because the wealthy elite in the dnc don't care, they win either way.
That's preferable, but it's nearly certain that a strong left wing party would result in more Republican victories due to the spoiler effect. As far as I understand you can only have one or the other (or neither) here.
Yeah... That's what I was saying
That's a false worry.
As a Canadian with multiple political parties in our house of parliament, numbers don't change.
If one left party gets 100 seats, the second left party gets 20, and the right leaning party gets 115 (for example) The right leaning party, yes technically, gets to say they're in charge. But they can't really do anything without cooperation from the left.
115 < 120 regardless of the number of parties.
Parties matter less than right vs left matters.
Yes, but if one left party gets 100 votes, the second left party gets 20 votes, and the right leaning party gets 115 (for example) The right leaning party gets the seat.
I'm sure you've seen examples of Liberal and NDP votes combined outnumbering the Conservative votes on a riding but the Conservative still won.
Yes. That's my point. It's called a minority government and it means no one side can do anything without collaboration from the other side no matter who's nominally "in charge".
I'm not talking about total seats, I'm talking about in one specific riding. Whatever district you are in, if the Conservative MP in your area gets 40% of the vote, and the liberal and NDP MPs each get 30% of the vote, the Conservative wins the seat and the other parties get nothing in that district, despite 60% of voters voting for left leaning parties.
I think it's awesome that Canada is able to support more than 2 parties, but that doesn't mean the spoiler effect doesn't exist.
I get that. But my initial comment was/is about total seats, so what are you trying to argue here?
Your initial comment was how the spoiler effect doesn't exist. When it comes to individual seats it still does.
Make the DNC the spoiler... I think Bernie and the squad could pull enough Dems away, plus get enough new people, to actually have a bigger party than the DNC