know progressive policies get people excited. They’re not interested in being progressive. They’re only interested in maintaining the status quo and if stepping on you is necessary to do that, they’ll happily do it. Some of them will make a somber face on
All fine and dandy, but voting 3rd without the 3rd being actually viable is just voting 1st for the other side.
What makes the third viable is voting for it. But that aside, making the Democrats lose with a clear auditable trail of votes to the left makes it clear they have to move left (and take the third party’s positions) or be destroyed. This is how the party system in the US has always worked, from the Whigs to the FDR coalition. The modern GOP almost did this, but was so sidelined by the FDR coalition and failures of Nixon that their right wing didn’t even have to leave under Reagan to take over.
That’s an idiotic hot take that gives the Democrats in power a lot of undeserved confidence in their seats and is exactly why Kamala failed to excite voters.
In a very small handful of very vulnerable seats, sure, that might be true. For literally every other race in the country, that’s not only bullshit it’s problematic.
“I don’t have to try, x number of people will vote for me no matter what.” That’s not conjecture, it’s literally part of the calculation campaign managers do for every single election. X voters will always vote for D/R candidate, and Y voters never will. If X is greater than half of the number of votes in the last election, campaign to your donors.
Democrats will not change their tune until they start seeing some risk. Safe and leans D seats need to start shifting away from them. They need to lose votes they once thought were guaranteed and a sizable portion of those votes need to be for non viable progressives.
All fine and dandy, but voting 3rd without the 3rd being actually viable is just voting 1st for the other side.
It literally is not.
What makes the third viable is voting for it. But that aside, making the Democrats lose with a clear auditable trail of votes to the left makes it clear they have to move left (and take the third party’s positions) or be destroyed. This is how the party system in the US has always worked, from the Whigs to the FDR coalition. The modern GOP almost did this, but was so sidelined by the FDR coalition and failures of Nixon that their right wing didn’t even have to leave under Reagan to take over.
That’s an idiotic hot take that gives the Democrats in power a lot of undeserved confidence in their seats and is exactly why Kamala failed to excite voters.
In a very small handful of very vulnerable seats, sure, that might be true. For literally every other race in the country, that’s not only bullshit it’s problematic.
“I don’t have to try, x number of people will vote for me no matter what.” That’s not conjecture, it’s literally part of the calculation campaign managers do for every single election. X voters will always vote for D/R candidate, and Y voters never will. If X is greater than half of the number of votes in the last election, campaign to your donors.
Democrats will not change their tune until they start seeing some risk. Safe and leans D seats need to start shifting away from them. They need to lose votes they once thought were guaranteed and a sizable portion of those votes need to be for non viable progressives.
Removed by mod
You are just desperate not to get it aren’t you?
Removed by mod
Keep trolling, maybe it’ll work for you sometime.