• gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    And they won’t.

    The Democratic Party is frankly played out at this point. It’s pretty obviously a zombie party. We need a new one that isn’t beholden to neoliberalism.

    • mommykink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Please keep that attitude in 2028, when every mention of voting third party gets you called a Nazi and “a vote for 3P is a vote for Trump!!”

      • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 hours ago

        When there’s a viable third party candidate, sure.

        Otherwise - yes, it is a vote against your own interests. Hi, I’m one of those who pointed out its just a vote for trump in this past election. It was true then, its still true now. You don’t start during the presidential election season, or you’re just a grifter.

        You push for 3rd party in local and state elections and get viable candidates.

        Jill Stein is still nothing more than a piece of trash grifter.

        • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          You don’t start during the presidential election season, or you’re just a grifter.

          Jill Stein is too busy having lunch with Putin to join the conversation.

          Edit: you already called her out. I should read the whole comment before having a kneejerk reaction.

      • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Different scenario. The hard work of getting a new party or new candidates into the process needs to be done right now. If you don’t see any fruits of that hard work come election day then you need to go with the stop-gap option.

      • ramsorge@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Well, it is, statistically. The voting system makes sure of that. We need a better system before we can vote for the best, not the one who is most likely to beat the worst.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Failing to account for the constraints of the system you’re participating in is a recipe for failing to succeed in said system.

        I’m not saying I like the DNC - in fact, I have come to outright detest the party as a whole. But there’s a reason why all the younger progressive legislators are still in the Democratic Party, and that’s tactical political pragmatism. That said, I do think the results of this election, and this continuing ratfucking by the DNC oligarchs is going to be seen as the breaking point in history books (if we eventually pull out of this authoritarian slide and have history books in the future, that is).

    • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Although i was already leaning this way but Geriatric Nancy Pelosi pushing the vote against AOC from the hospital from her broken hip made me decide I won’t be voting Democrat in the national elections any time soon.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        No - that’s the wrong response. You’ve got to be tactical. You can’t ignore the constraints of the system if you’re going to participate in the system. Doing so is a recipe for failure.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Exactly. I’ll vote for the kind of politician I want in the primary, and vote tactically for the one who is closest to my views, but who stands something of a chance of winning in the general.

        • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          I kinda stopped caring, been voting tactically the last three elections and still got orange mussolini and an our incumbent senator got beat by an out of state republican. And the democratic party is not adjusting, instead its doubling down. Why should I reward this kind of behavior. Local elections and state elections I’ll still keep supporting who I think is best

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Why should I reward this kind of behavior.

            That’s not how it works -you “reward” the behavior of candidates who vote the way you want and if there are none, you vote for the least damaging while encouraging those who do vote the way you want to run.

            It’s not a boycott. If the party (any party, not just DNC) is broken - fix the party. The DNC has been broken for longer than not, but if you can think of anything good that’s happened in government, it’s almost always because of Democrats. That doesn’t happen by non-involvement, that’s not the fix.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              That’s not how it works -you “reward” the behavior of candidates who vote the way you want

              Easy for you to say. You have candidates who vote the way you want.

              If the party (any party, not just DNC) is broken - fix the party.

              By what mechanism? If the party loses nothing when it ignores its constituents, there’s no leverage.

              That doesn’t happen by non-involvement, that’s not the fix.

              Involvement hasn’t worked either. But now you get to blame the party acting like you want it to on people who are upset that it doesn’t work for them. It’s simple, if the party doesn’t work for you, it’s because you’re not involved enough! So really it’s your fault that the party is run by corrupt pro-genocide geriatrics who render primaries meaningless. Lazy millennials.