The major parties are following the third-party strategy of only choosing candidates no one sensible would want to vote for. If any of the third partys can change their strategy they might have a chance.
Chances are though, that the third parties will double down on their typical strategy and somehow find even worse candidates.
the elections is America for quite some time now (except for “hope & change” which left us hopeless and unchanged) has basically been choosing the lesser of two bad choices. 81m people did not want for senile grandpa in 2020, they voted against trump. 2016 same-ish and so on…
>> Why? And also: What can be done to change this in the future?
Two corrupt political parties that are owned by monied interests thanks to Citizens United, decades without campaign finance reform, and rampant "gifts" and extortion.
Neither party represents the people or their needs. They take money and make money. Laws are written by monied special interests. Members of both parties have been doing insider trading for decades, but now it is on naked display, bold and unashamed, as if it to say, "what are you going to do about it?"
Drastic systemic changes are needed on the order of a Constitutional Convention, but it is doubtful that it will happen without tremendous public outcry.
tremendeous public outcry is no longer possible as the country is so divided at this point that nothing can unite the public (short of national tragedy like 9/11). that shipped has sailed for america…
I wish I was smart enough to answer this… Overturning Citizen United is probably mandatory start, there may actually be some light at the end of that tunnel but I am not holding my breath…
I hate trump and the gop. But I’ll also be the first one to admit that the dems are such fucking losers - very hard to actually vote for, because I know they’ll just do absolutely nothing with the mandate that is given to them.
In politics, you always have to ask, "compared to what"? Yes, Trump is bad in all sorts of ways. So are the far leftists who are increasingly dominating Democratic politics.
Besides Biden and Harris having some of the worst draw in any presidential election, check out the candidates for California's gubernatorial election. They're tripping over each other, trying to show that they can all be more scandalous than the current governor.
DSA for example. They are increasing their influence, for example they have several elected members on the LA Board of Supervisors, not to mention the mayor of the most important US city. They are absolutely dedicated to wrecking the place and they are doing a great job of it in LA at least. That's the direction I see the Democrats going, somewhat in response to Trump, which is bad all around.
> far leftists who are increasingly dominating Democratic
As a far leftist myself, I can only wish that were true; it would be a great problem to have! No, the Democratic Party is a fundamentally non-democratic institution, run from the top down by an insiders' club who care about 1) their own careers, 2) the priorities of their millionaire donors, and 3) the results of opinion polls, strictly in that order. You may be hearing more leftist voices than you're used to, but they are appealing to the party - with little effect - and certainly not dominating it.
The far left is inherently non-democratic, so it's kind of an odd thing to complain about.
The only way far left policies are ever enacted is by a top-down insider's club of elites who think they know best for everyone else.
Of course, that's the same for the ultra-conservatives too. Extreme policies have never been popular with the American people.
In both cases, you have authoritarianism and statism differing only by sentiment and temperament.
But despite Trump's personality, he has a very broad appeal to ordinary people, speaks plainly, and for better or worse, does exactly what he says he'll do.
Conversely, Democrats seem to do nothing but back pedal and blame shift whenever their pie-in-the-sky policies fail miserably.
And of course, whenever the Democrats lose, their radical base takes to the streets, because obviously democracy has failed.
You may think of yourself as a far leftists, but if you really do embrace democracy, rule of law, and stand against authoritarianism, you're probably not nearly as far left as you imagine.
> In both cases, you have authoritarianism and statism differing only by sentiment and temperament.
We certainly agree there! - those tendencies are not exclusive to either end of the political axis.
One of the fun truths about leftists is that we disagree with each other as vigorously as we do with folks from the other side of the aisle: there are many forms of leftism, and they are certainly not all authoritarian or statist. In some strains of leftism, there is no role for the state at all; in others, opposition to authoritarianism is a primary concern.
I am sure that from a conservative viewpoint the other side looks like one big undifferentiated mass of crazy people, but from where I sit, the Democratic party looks like a fundamentally centrist institution which mostly prefers business-as-usual, occasionally proposing small tweaks in the direction of slightly softening the rough edges of the system when that will make the big donors happy. Leftists describe this as "liberalism". Voters may call for radical change from time to time, but the party never gets around to doing anything about it.
> probably not nearly as far left as you imagine
I am not sure how you can get any further left than libertarian socialism.
It's weird that the narrative is still that the Democrats are "far leftists" when they basically tanked their last campaign because they loved American imperialism and genocide so much.
I mean, Kamala Harris' pivot to the right is going to be studied in political science textbooks for years. And Biden was a pro-police DA who (contrary to Republican propaganda) was aggressively anti-immigrant and he betrayed labor unions during the rail workers' strike.
Not even Obama, the Great Marxist Antichrist (as far as Republicans were concerned) was that leftist.
In my experience the only people who use the term "far leftist" to describe the Democrats were never going to vote for them to begin with. No actual leftist thinks the Democrats are allies, they're just the lesser evil. If anything, more people are disillusioned with them because they aren't leftist enough.
1. People are sticking with Trumpism, even if Trump looks batshit crazy, because they are in it for the racism, misogyny, homophobia, faux Christianity, anti-immigration, xenophobia ... all the things that "Make America Great Again", This is the classic fascist playbook that gets acted out from time to time.
In fact, they have been gamed since Lee Atwater's "Southern Strategy" of getting people to vote their racism to advance the cause of the wealthy, to the voters' disadvantage. But they like the rush. (pun unintended)
2. The Democratic Party has been under continuous vilification, demonization, character assassination and lies/CT's for a decade or decades by highly aligned right wing media, and the purchase of media (WAPO e.g.) by right wing oligarchs. The Democrats do not have such a nonstop flamethrower, and in fact, the DNC looks like a slumber party until just before election time, mostly having been painted into a corner and countering the discourse that someone else set.
3. BOTH parties are dominated by big donors, who moderate Democratic positions (cuz they REALLY hate regulations and fair-share taxation). The GOP covers this up with blood-inflaming racism, and targeting of immigrants to cover up the single-minded "welfare for the rich" agenda. Races this year have shown the power of "populism for and by working people" ... TBD
Many people voted for Trump because he was seen as "revolutionary". They got a revolution in the form of destruction and literal bloodshed. It was tacitly a revolution of the wealthy against taxation and regulation. The latter was and is a main goal of the few in charge of the largest AI buildouts. Their purpose is control, and control abhors regulation. They tipped a lot of state electors.
4. Elections seem to be strongly influenced by economic/COL issues. Many devotees of right wing media still think (until very recently) that we are recovering from the "Biden Depression" and that things have never been better after the undoing of the (highly successful) "Bottom-up Bidenomics" program.
Someone can truly say that "Things have never been better," but only for a few.
5. The GOP has largely slipped into a cult mentality. Projection, blame, denial, acceptance of CT's and lies ... Recovery is difficult. It's like losing the identity that you gave away to the group. You can't go to the demonized other side, and the previous identity was too weak to hold onto. Some elements that might eventually lessen the hold are the enormous contradictions being too much to handle ( see below), a sense of betrayal by the cult leader, or just plain hitting rock bottom (or close to it)
Extracted tweets from the past:
Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate. 10/9/12
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict?
Obama needs Congressional approval. 29 Aug 2013
The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East.
Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE..
8:14 AM • 10/9/19
We are building the biggest and broadest coalition in American Political History. This includes record-breaking numbers of Arab and Muslim Voters in Michigan who want PEACE. They know Kamala and her warmonger Cabinet will invade the Middle East, get millions of Muslims killed, 11/2024
First off, Trump is only "super unpopular" with liberals. And if you only listen to liberals and the msm, you're not getting the full picture.
For sane centrists and conservatives, despite all Trump's shortcomings, he's still the only real bulwark against the extremes of the (perceived) radical Left, which presently make up the Democrat's hard core base.
For a liberal to hear that is damn near blasphemy, I know, but believe it or not, there's a whole lot of us out there who are not onboard with what the Dems have been pedaling the last decade and longer.
But to answer the question more directly: for Democrats to have a "bigger lead", they'd have to appeal to the center, to moderates, to swing voters.
Are they doing that? No. Not even close. Quite the opposite in fact.
While the "sky is falling", "democracy at risk", "orange man bad" rhetoric worked to keep the public outraged for a long time, with help of the liberal msm, that messaging hasn't aged well.
Implying half the country are Nazis doesn't bring in the new recruits either.
But if Democrats are ever going to take the majority again, either the GOP/Trump will have to f'k up really bad, and that is certainly possible
- OR -
Democrats will have to stop pushing largely unpopular socialist-inspired policies and anti-American radical Left ideologies, all of which is off putting to the "everyman" of the political center.
Of course, the Democrat plan to radicalize the youth and import foreign bodies has been moving along at quite the pace, but people are catching on.
The fact is, the Center is what decides between Left and Right today, as each makes up roughly ~30% of the electorate. No side can win without winning the center.
So, we have a largely moderate-right party in power and a far-left party out of power.
Why?
Because Americans have historically been moderate by nature, which used to de facto mean "liberal", but increasingly that moniker comes with some very pernicious baggage, as eventually, people do get wise to the grift, especially when it hits them in the wallet, as it has in so many now quite "unlivable" blue states which people are leaving en masse.
Otoh, if Iran becomes a boondoggle, Dems may get their chance. And oh are they hoping it all goes completely sideways too. But it's going to be a very slim chance unless they get a clue, and start moving back to the center-left of the 80's and 90's.
You asked. You probably don't like the answer. But don't shoot the messenger, OK?
> So, we have a largely moderate-right party in power and a far-left party out of power.
I'd say you -- mind you, I'm writing from the other side of the Atlantic, and even if I have lived in the US, that was a long time ago! -- have lunatic right-wingers in power and lunatic liberals who think they are entitled to running the show as the (weak but noisy) opposition.
Why does this happen? Because close to nobody votes in the primaries, and so it is mostly candidates who have rather extremist views that are chosen by the two parties. How to solve this? By getting more people to vote in the primaries, so that more middle-of-the-road candidates are chosen.
How would this be even possible? Only if expressing one's vote were much simpler. I pretty much subscribe to Bradley Tusk's view (see: Vote with your phone: Why Mobile Voting Is Our Final Shot at Saving Democracy) that allowing people to vote from their phones is the only way to save the US.
Actually, "a long time ago" the GOP was not moderate in the least. But the Democrats were quite centrist in most things, at least up until Obama.
But I agree, poor turnouts in primaries is bad. Even worse in states with open primaries where liberals purposely try to sabotage Republican primaries.
Electronic voting isn't going to help us, not for a good long while. Nothing on the Internet is safe. And as soon as quantum computing hits the scene, things are going to get real cray cray.
Imo, we just need good old fashioned ballots, an enforced chain of custody, and proper ID checking (at some stage), no late mail-in ballots (drop off is fine), and ZERO computers.
And I say this as a very pro-technology person. But we haven't caught up to what the tech can do, not yet.
I'll have to look into that. But I'll tell you, neither major party in the USA would go for it.
The Dems will cry about ballot access, I mean there might be some bum or granny out there without a phone, and we'd have to pass a bill to give away free phones to everyone, oh and along with free healthcare, before they might consider it.
The GOP will cry about who has control of the system, that we're not a democracy, we're a Republic, something about unconstitutional blah blah blah, and "we never needed that before, why do we need it now", sorts of arguments.
My take is that everything is hackable. If Russia hasn't hacked it, maybe they just have bigger fish to fry. Who knows.
But from what I know of quantum computing and AI, even the best encryption is going to be in trouble.
While personally I'm on the side of tech, that eventually we'll get there, I'm also rather cautious in how we proceed.
Perhaps because pretty much nobody likes the Dems, either?
The major parties are following the third-party strategy of only choosing candidates no one sensible would want to vote for. If any of the third partys can change their strategy they might have a chance.
Chances are though, that the third parties will double down on their typical strategy and somehow find even worse candidates.
the elections is America for quite some time now (except for “hope & change” which left us hopeless and unchanged) has basically been choosing the lesser of two bad choices. 81m people did not want for senile grandpa in 2020, they voted against trump. 2016 same-ish and so on…
It's hard to disagree with you. What would be worth asking is: Why? And also: What can be done to change this in the future?
>> Why? And also: What can be done to change this in the future?
Two corrupt political parties that are owned by monied interests thanks to Citizens United, decades without campaign finance reform, and rampant "gifts" and extortion.
Neither party represents the people or their needs. They take money and make money. Laws are written by monied special interests. Members of both parties have been doing insider trading for decades, but now it is on naked display, bold and unashamed, as if it to say, "what are you going to do about it?"
Drastic systemic changes are needed on the order of a Constitutional Convention, but it is doubtful that it will happen without tremendous public outcry.
tremendeous public outcry is no longer possible as the country is so divided at this point that nothing can unite the public (short of national tragedy like 9/11). that shipped has sailed for america…
I fear that you are correct.
Perhaps if people become desperate enough something might happen, but keeping people divided is a strategy to prevent resistance.
It seems like we are sliding closer everyday to George Orwell's 1984. I wonder when Hate Week starts . . .
I wish I was smart enough to answer this… Overturning Citizen United is probably mandatory start, there may actually be some light at the end of that tunnel but I am not holding my breath…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/apr/19/citize...
I hate trump and the gop. But I’ll also be the first one to admit that the dems are such fucking losers - very hard to actually vote for, because I know they’ll just do absolutely nothing with the mandate that is given to them.
In politics, you always have to ask, "compared to what"? Yes, Trump is bad in all sorts of ways. So are the far leftists who are increasingly dominating Democratic politics.
Who are some leftists in power (or likely to be in power) who are as comparably awful as the current PotUS ?
Besides Biden and Harris having some of the worst draw in any presidential election, check out the candidates for California's gubernatorial election. They're tripping over each other, trying to show that they can all be more scandalous than the current governor.
DSA for example. They are increasing their influence, for example they have several elected members on the LA Board of Supervisors, not to mention the mayor of the most important US city. They are absolutely dedicated to wrecking the place and they are doing a great job of it in LA at least. That's the direction I see the Democrats going, somewhat in response to Trump, which is bad all around.
> far leftists who are increasingly dominating Democratic
As a far leftist myself, I can only wish that were true; it would be a great problem to have! No, the Democratic Party is a fundamentally non-democratic institution, run from the top down by an insiders' club who care about 1) their own careers, 2) the priorities of their millionaire donors, and 3) the results of opinion polls, strictly in that order. You may be hearing more leftist voices than you're used to, but they are appealing to the party - with little effect - and certainly not dominating it.
The far left is inherently non-democratic, so it's kind of an odd thing to complain about.
The only way far left policies are ever enacted is by a top-down insider's club of elites who think they know best for everyone else.
Of course, that's the same for the ultra-conservatives too. Extreme policies have never been popular with the American people.
In both cases, you have authoritarianism and statism differing only by sentiment and temperament.
But despite Trump's personality, he has a very broad appeal to ordinary people, speaks plainly, and for better or worse, does exactly what he says he'll do.
Conversely, Democrats seem to do nothing but back pedal and blame shift whenever their pie-in-the-sky policies fail miserably.
And of course, whenever the Democrats lose, their radical base takes to the streets, because obviously democracy has failed.
You may think of yourself as a far leftists, but if you really do embrace democracy, rule of law, and stand against authoritarianism, you're probably not nearly as far left as you imagine.
> In both cases, you have authoritarianism and statism differing only by sentiment and temperament.
We certainly agree there! - those tendencies are not exclusive to either end of the political axis.
One of the fun truths about leftists is that we disagree with each other as vigorously as we do with folks from the other side of the aisle: there are many forms of leftism, and they are certainly not all authoritarian or statist. In some strains of leftism, there is no role for the state at all; in others, opposition to authoritarianism is a primary concern.
I am sure that from a conservative viewpoint the other side looks like one big undifferentiated mass of crazy people, but from where I sit, the Democratic party looks like a fundamentally centrist institution which mostly prefers business-as-usual, occasionally proposing small tweaks in the direction of slightly softening the rough edges of the system when that will make the big donors happy. Leftists describe this as "liberalism". Voters may call for radical change from time to time, but the party never gets around to doing anything about it.
> probably not nearly as far left as you imagine
I am not sure how you can get any further left than libertarian socialism.
It's weird that the narrative is still that the Democrats are "far leftists" when they basically tanked their last campaign because they loved American imperialism and genocide so much.
I mean, Kamala Harris' pivot to the right is going to be studied in political science textbooks for years. And Biden was a pro-police DA who (contrary to Republican propaganda) was aggressively anti-immigrant and he betrayed labor unions during the rail workers' strike.
Not even Obama, the Great Marxist Antichrist (as far as Republicans were concerned) was that leftist.
In my experience the only people who use the term "far leftist" to describe the Democrats were never going to vote for them to begin with. No actual leftist thinks the Democrats are allies, they're just the lesser evil. If anything, more people are disillusioned with them because they aren't leftist enough.
1. People are sticking with Trumpism, even if Trump looks batshit crazy, because they are in it for the racism, misogyny, homophobia, faux Christianity, anti-immigration, xenophobia ... all the things that "Make America Great Again", This is the classic fascist playbook that gets acted out from time to time.
In fact, they have been gamed since Lee Atwater's "Southern Strategy" of getting people to vote their racism to advance the cause of the wealthy, to the voters' disadvantage. But they like the rush. (pun unintended)
graphic: https://i.ibb.co/JtSWj63/Voterep-1.jpg
2. The Democratic Party has been under continuous vilification, demonization, character assassination and lies/CT's for a decade or decades by highly aligned right wing media, and the purchase of media (WAPO e.g.) by right wing oligarchs. The Democrats do not have such a nonstop flamethrower, and in fact, the DNC looks like a slumber party until just before election time, mostly having been painted into a corner and countering the discourse that someone else set.
3. BOTH parties are dominated by big donors, who moderate Democratic positions (cuz they REALLY hate regulations and fair-share taxation). The GOP covers this up with blood-inflaming racism, and targeting of immigrants to cover up the single-minded "welfare for the rich" agenda. Races this year have shown the power of "populism for and by working people" ... TBD
Many people voted for Trump because he was seen as "revolutionary". They got a revolution in the form of destruction and literal bloodshed. It was tacitly a revolution of the wealthy against taxation and regulation. The latter was and is a main goal of the few in charge of the largest AI buildouts. Their purpose is control, and control abhors regulation. They tipped a lot of state electors.
4. Elections seem to be strongly influenced by economic/COL issues. Many devotees of right wing media still think (until very recently) that we are recovering from the "Biden Depression" and that things have never been better after the undoing of the (highly successful) "Bottom-up Bidenomics" program.
Someone can truly say that "Things have never been better," but only for a few.
5. The GOP has largely slipped into a cult mentality. Projection, blame, denial, acceptance of CT's and lies ... Recovery is difficult. It's like losing the identity that you gave away to the group. You can't go to the demonized other side, and the previous identity was too weak to hold onto. Some elements that might eventually lessen the hold are the enormous contradictions being too much to handle ( see below), a sense of betrayal by the cult leader, or just plain hitting rock bottom (or close to it)
Extracted tweets from the past:
Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate. 10/9/12
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval. 29 Aug 2013
The United States has spent EIGHT TRILLION DOLLARS fighting and policing in the Middle East. Thousands of our Great Soldiers have died or been badly wounded. Millions of people have died on the other side. GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE.. 8:14 AM • 10/9/19
We are building the biggest and broadest coalition in American Political History. This includes record-breaking numbers of Arab and Muslim Voters in Michigan who want PEACE. They know Kamala and her warmonger Cabinet will invade the Middle East, get millions of Muslims killed, 11/2024
First off, Trump is only "super unpopular" with liberals. And if you only listen to liberals and the msm, you're not getting the full picture.
For sane centrists and conservatives, despite all Trump's shortcomings, he's still the only real bulwark against the extremes of the (perceived) radical Left, which presently make up the Democrat's hard core base.
For a liberal to hear that is damn near blasphemy, I know, but believe it or not, there's a whole lot of us out there who are not onboard with what the Dems have been pedaling the last decade and longer.
But to answer the question more directly: for Democrats to have a "bigger lead", they'd have to appeal to the center, to moderates, to swing voters.
Are they doing that? No. Not even close. Quite the opposite in fact.
While the "sky is falling", "democracy at risk", "orange man bad" rhetoric worked to keep the public outraged for a long time, with help of the liberal msm, that messaging hasn't aged well.
Implying half the country are Nazis doesn't bring in the new recruits either.
But if Democrats are ever going to take the majority again, either the GOP/Trump will have to f'k up really bad, and that is certainly possible
- OR -
Democrats will have to stop pushing largely unpopular socialist-inspired policies and anti-American radical Left ideologies, all of which is off putting to the "everyman" of the political center.
Of course, the Democrat plan to radicalize the youth and import foreign bodies has been moving along at quite the pace, but people are catching on.
The fact is, the Center is what decides between Left and Right today, as each makes up roughly ~30% of the electorate. No side can win without winning the center.
So, we have a largely moderate-right party in power and a far-left party out of power.
Why?
Because Americans have historically been moderate by nature, which used to de facto mean "liberal", but increasingly that moniker comes with some very pernicious baggage, as eventually, people do get wise to the grift, especially when it hits them in the wallet, as it has in so many now quite "unlivable" blue states which people are leaving en masse.
Otoh, if Iran becomes a boondoggle, Dems may get their chance. And oh are they hoping it all goes completely sideways too. But it's going to be a very slim chance unless they get a clue, and start moving back to the center-left of the 80's and 90's.
You asked. You probably don't like the answer. But don't shoot the messenger, OK?
> So, we have a largely moderate-right party in power and a far-left party out of power.
I'd say you -- mind you, I'm writing from the other side of the Atlantic, and even if I have lived in the US, that was a long time ago! -- have lunatic right-wingers in power and lunatic liberals who think they are entitled to running the show as the (weak but noisy) opposition.
Why does this happen? Because close to nobody votes in the primaries, and so it is mostly candidates who have rather extremist views that are chosen by the two parties. How to solve this? By getting more people to vote in the primaries, so that more middle-of-the-road candidates are chosen.
How would this be even possible? Only if expressing one's vote were much simpler. I pretty much subscribe to Bradley Tusk's view (see: Vote with your phone: Why Mobile Voting Is Our Final Shot at Saving Democracy) that allowing people to vote from their phones is the only way to save the US.
Actually, "a long time ago" the GOP was not moderate in the least. But the Democrats were quite centrist in most things, at least up until Obama.
But I agree, poor turnouts in primaries is bad. Even worse in states with open primaries where liberals purposely try to sabotage Republican primaries.
Electronic voting isn't going to help us, not for a good long while. Nothing on the Internet is safe. And as soon as quantum computing hits the scene, things are going to get real cray cray.
Imo, we just need good old fashioned ballots, an enforced chain of custody, and proper ID checking (at some stage), no late mail-in ballots (drop off is fine), and ZERO computers.
And I say this as a very pro-technology person. But we haven't caught up to what the tech can do, not yet.
I know for sure that e-voting has been a thing for years now in Estonia, perhaps the country most subject to Russian attempts to tamper with voting.
I'll have to look into that. But I'll tell you, neither major party in the USA would go for it.
The Dems will cry about ballot access, I mean there might be some bum or granny out there without a phone, and we'd have to pass a bill to give away free phones to everyone, oh and along with free healthcare, before they might consider it.
The GOP will cry about who has control of the system, that we're not a democracy, we're a Republic, something about unconstitutional blah blah blah, and "we never needed that before, why do we need it now", sorts of arguments.
My take is that everything is hackable. If Russia hasn't hacked it, maybe they just have bigger fish to fry. Who knows.
But from what I know of quantum computing and AI, even the best encryption is going to be in trouble.
While personally I'm on the side of tech, that eventually we'll get there, I'm also rather cautious in how we proceed.
https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-quantum-...