Current Events > Progressives should form their own party get out of the Democrat party

(+) Yeah! (+)

They don't want them there
They don't like them
They actively plot against them, even teaming up with Republicans and AiPAC to try to oust progressives if they win

For far too long progressives have been forced to link with Democrats to try and get some good things done but now with Trump's rise to power yet again Democrats have made it clear they want to be center right with next to no true progressive ideals in mind because progressive ideals piss off their wealthy donors and that's all they care about, to hell with their constituents or the country, who needs morals when you're wealthy from insider trade deals and legalized bribery?

The only thing they really need to do is vet their members better far too many people win elections running on progressive stances only to show their true right wing leanings once they get power and the money starts flowing in.

That would split the vote and make it easier for Republicans to win.

Turbam posted...

That would split the vote and make it easier for Republicans to win.

I've seen a lot of leftists wanting to destroy the Democratic party first in hopes of creating an actual left-wing party from its ashes. Good luck with that though.

National ranked choice voting would be the only way that wouldn't destroy the left

If we could kill the Whigs then we can kill Democrats too.

A_Good_Boy posted...

If we could kill the Whigs then we can kill Democrats too.

Yea good luck with that.

Nice thought, but it won't happen in reality. It'll just split the vote and guarantee GOP victory.

What needs to happen to the Democratic party is a progressive takeover. Same thing that happened with the Republican party and MAGA. We're stuck with these parties, but we can hollow them out and put something else in the middle. Transform them into another party while keeping the same name. That seems like the only effective way to do it -- and it has been done before.

TheOnionKnight posted...

Nice thought, but it won't happen in reality. It'll just split the vote and guarantee GOP victory.

What needs to happen to the Democratic party is a progressive takeover. Same thing that happened with the Republican party and MAGA. We're stuck with these parties, but we can hollow them out and put something else in the middle. Transform them into another party while keeping the same name. That seems like the only effective way to do it -- and it has been done before.

To do that, progressives are going to have to win primary races on a grander scale than ever before.

Some Progressives operate on a belief everyone already agrees with them and they're super popular except for the Dems repressing them, so they're not really big on "convince people"

1000% Agree.

Neither party serves the American populace.

They can't compete with candidates backed by billionaires and super pacs.

MrResetti posted...

They can't compete with candidates backed by billionaires and super pacs.

Which begs the question as to why MAGA could when PACs were supporting fiscal conservatives more over the socially zealous ones.

With blackjack and hookers!

You need electoral reform before a 3rd party would become viable.

They would never get the funding required to compete in US politics.

It doesn't help that young leftists feel that they must destroy the system over making use of what's left of it.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/0ec1b930.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/c3c64c82.jpg

Sure.

I'm envious of countries with multiple political parties where you might have the opportunity to vote for someone who actually represents your beliefs instead of deciding between who is less bad.

Hospy posted...

Sure.

I'm envious of countries with multiple political parties where you might have the opportunity to vote for someone who actually represents your beliefs instead of deciding between who is less bad.

This.

The only way a new party will ever be viable in America is if it rises out of the remains of the big 2.

Humble_Novice posted...

It doesn't help that young leftists feel that they must destroy the system over making use of what's left of it.

Yep. People LOVE to see outrage and things framed as conspiracies. It's why right-wing podcasts are so popular because they cater to that. Left-wing podcasts and similar shows don't take off because they tend to talk about things rationally and logically, and people don't want that.

It's a sad reality and I've come to realize that maybe fighting fire with fire is gonna have to be necessary, instead of trying to take the higher moral ground.

Humble_Novice posted...

It doesn't help that young leftists feel that they must destroy the system over making use of what's left of it.

It doesn't help that literally every attempt to make use of the system has failed. If they're not supposed to try and integrate into an existing party and they're not supposed to make a new party, what are they supposed to do if they feel unrepresented?

tremain07 posted...

They don't want them there
They don't like them
They actively plot against them, even teaming up with Republicans and AiPAC to try to oust progressives if they win

For far too long progressives have been forced to link with Democrats to try and get some good things done but now with Trump's rise to power yet again Democrats have made it clear they want to be center right with next to no true progressive ideals in mind because progressive ideals piss off their wealthy donors and that's all they care about, to hell with their constituents or the country, who needs morals when you're wealthy from insider trade deals and legalized bribery?

The only thing they really need to do is vet their members better far too many people win elections running on progressive stances only to show their true right wing leanings once they get power and the money starts flowing in.

And you'd be solidifying a Republican victory for years to come which also means its much harder and harder to reverse damages.

On top of that, idk what fever dream those who are pushing this are on.... IF a progressive ever won, they would NOT be as successful ushering their progressive agenda as they think.

This is a terrible plan for progressives.

They literally did and it's called the working families party

Enclave posted...

You need electoral reform before a 3rd party would become viable.

Third parties are very viable just not at the national or statewide level. They can and do win county, City, and district elections.

reincarnator07 posted...

It doesn't help that literally every attempt to make use of the system has failed. If they're not supposed to try and integrate into an existing party and they're not supposed to make a new party, what are they supposed to do if they feel unrepresented?

Save for the smart ones like AOC and Crockett.... most of progressive actually are not utilizing the system. Including its voter base.

They value virtue signalling a higher sense of morality, than actually utilizing the system we have. That and they value polls, and gestures that dont amount winning an actual seat in government. For example, many progressives to this day dont understand that even if you dont like both parties, either a Democrat or Republican will win. Don't get me started on their inability to champion progress if its less than perfect. In their world, its all or we mind as well consider it nothing.

You (I speak in general when I say you) can ride on your mile high chariot as much as you want. At the end of the day, elections have consequences, either a Republican or Democrat will win, ..... Republicans are 10x worse, and not voting for Democrats does actively aid Republicans. Republicans who btw actively want to reverse any progressive agendas you like.

Say what you want about Democrats, the majority of Democrats arent the ones leading the charge to reverse progress. Yet the purity warriors will swear up and down Dems are just/almost as bad.

asdf8562 posted...

Save for the smart ones like AOC and Crockett.... most of progressive actually are not utilizing the system. Including its voter base.

They value virtue signalling a higher sense of morality, than actually utilizing the system we have. For example, many progressives to this day dont understand that even if you dont like both parties, either a Democrat or Republican will win.

You (I speak in general when I say you) can ride on your mile high chariot as much as you want. At the end of the day, elections have consequences, either a Republican or Democrat will win, ..... Republicans are 10x worse, and not voting for Democrats does actively aid Republicans. Republicans who btw actively want to reverse any progressive agendas you like.

Say what you want about Democrats, the majority of Democrats arent the ones leading the charge to reverse progress. Yet the purity warriors will swear up and down Dems are just/almost as bad.

And the vast majority of these purity warriors are either white and/or privileged, insulating them from considering the consequences of the GOP winning. While it definitely gives them an edge in weathering Trump's policies, they don't seem to consider what will happen to racial minorities like me who'll likely get targeted due to not having the "correct" skin color.

asdf8562 posted...

Save for the smart ones like AOC and Crockett.... most of progressive actually are not utilizing the system. Including its voter base.

They value virtue signalling a higher sense of morality, than actually utilizing the system we have. That and they value polls, and gestures that dont amount winning an actual seat in government. For example, many progressives to this day dont understand that even if you dont like both parties, either a Democrat or Republican will win. Don't get me started on their inability to champion progress if its less than perfect. In their world, its all or we mind as well consider it nothing.

You (I speak in general when I say you) can ride on your mile high chariot as much as you want. At the end of the day, elections have consequences, either a Republican or Democrat will win, ..... Republicans are 10x worse, and not voting for Democrats does actively aid Republicans. Republicans who btw actively want to reverse any progressive agendas you like.

Say what you want about Democrats, the majority of Democrats arent the ones leading the charge to reverse progress. Yet the purity warriors will swear up and down Dems are just/almost as bad.

Is there any actual evidence that you're talking about "most" progressives? Or is that just a convenient narrative to dismiss the entire movement?

Tyranthraxus posted...

Third parties are very viable just not at the national or statewide level. They can and do win county, City, and district elections.

Eh, I figured it was pretty clear we were talking on the national and statewide levels.

myusernameislame posted...

Is there any actual evidence that you're talking about "most" progressives? Or is that just a convenient narrative to dismiss the entire movement?

Doesn't need to be convenient. They arent voting enough Progressives into office.

The evidence literally shows not enough of them are voting enough Progressives into office and many even willing to sit out elections.

The only people dismissing their own movement are the proud non voters and 3rd party voters who happily and proudly ignore elections have consequences. Same to the proud defenders of non voters and 3rd party voters.

maga took over gop, progressives can take over democrats.

you need a charismatic leader i guess

Enclave posted...

Eh, I figured it was pretty clear we were talking on the national and statewide levels.

If you get the establishment democrats out at those low levels they'll start losing at the higher levels as well.

Turbam posted...

That would split the vote and make it easier for Republicans to win.

Best scenario would be if Republican party is banned, Progressives form new left wing party, and Dems become the new conservative party but stay the same. A realignment of American politics

Zikten posted...

Best scenario would be if Republican party is banned, Progressives form new left wing party, and Dems become the new conservative party but stay the same. A realignment of American politics

And then the Lord of Chocolate comes down from Licorice Mountain and gives everyone a lifetime supply of candy.

As long as we're just wishcasting things that'll never actually fucking happen

LightSnake posted...

And then the Lord of Chocolate comes down from Licorice Mountain and gives everyone a lifetime supply of candy.

As long as we're just wishcasting things that'll never actually fucking happen

It can happen after a civil war or ww3 in which American is on the wrong side, then gets defeated and the other side forces us to shut down Republicans like Germany had to shut down the nazi party

Zikten posted...

It can happen after a civil war or ww3 in which American is on the wrong side, then gets defeated and the other side forces us to shut down Republicans like Germany had to shut down the nazi party

And all the Republicans are vanquished forever and somehow 10s of millions of people just renounce their lifelong views to become normie libs?

Both parties splitting, with the more centrist parts of each combining to form the corporatist uniparty and the progressives and MAGA ends becoming their own party is the only realistic way the current party setup could change. The uniparty would win every election forever with this setup, of course.

Robot2600 posted...

maga took over gop, progressives can take over democrats.

you need a charismatic leader i guess

It's important to know that in order for MAGA to overtake the GOP they have consistently shown and voted for the GOP over democrats as they were pushing the party more and more right.

Progressives have to show up and vote, but they also need to make sure they keep voting for democrats even if their ideal candidate doesn't win otherwise they'll never push the needle. If you're views don't show up as a consistent voting demographic they will be ignored.

LightSnake posted...

And all the Republicans are vanquished forever and somehow 10s of millions of people just renounce their lifelong views to become normie libs?

Just look at post war Germany to see. Yes the bad people would still exist but they would be forced to hide in the shadows

Zikten posted...

Just look at post war Germany to see. Yes the bad people would still exist but they would be forced to hide in the shadows

"Just look at post war Germany to see!"

Yeah, that required an invasion and a county literally carved up by outside powers. Oh, and the bad people didn't "hide in the shadows" in post war Germany, either.

This article is really worth a read on this subject, I believe
https://jwmason.org/slackwire/political-parties-are-illegal-in-the-united-states/

In the UK, for example, the national elected leadership of the Labour Party is perfectly capable of forbidding an individual from running for office as a Labour candidate; thats what they did to Jeremy Corbyn. The Labour Party didnt have to go to Corbyns district and door-knock, or drop a million-dollar independent expenditure on him, to knock him off the Labour line; they simply voted him off, as they had a perfect right to do. In most countries the idea that the elected leadership of a party can decide who runs on that partys line seems quite naturalwhat else could it mean to have a political party?

But in the US, parties just arent allowed to do thatnot the Democratic Party and not the Socialism Party. The Democratic Party cant stop AOC (or Joe Lieberman, or Kyrsten Sinema, or Ilhan Omar) from running as a Democrat.

The question of why the US regulates political party selection of candidates down to the last detail would take us beyond the scope of this essay. Briefly, though, state regulation of parties is best seen as a reformist compromise ameliorating the anti-democratic effects of the two-party duopoly. In most countries, parties can choose candidates in any way they see fit, including in ways that exclude ordinary voters from having a voice. But the potentially undemocratic effects of these selection processes are mitigated by the fact that voters who dont like the outcomes can split and form another party. In the US, our law on political parties reflects a judgment that voters cant (as a practical matter) form a separate (viable) party, and so as a consolation prize we have the legal right to influence the candidate selection processes of the parties were stuck with.

This compromise means that US political parties are strange institutions, quite unlike political parties in other democratic countries. It would be barely overstating the case to say that the US simply doesnt have political parties. The two major US political parties are perhaps best viewed not as civil society organizations but as features of the US electoral system; in this interpretation, the US effectively has a two-stage runoff electoral system like the French presidential election system, where anyone can run in the first round and the top two vote-getters then run head to head. But unlike in France, the first stage of this runoff is organized on roughly ideological lines, where candidates who choose to label themselves as vaguely left-of-center run in a separate first-round election from candidates who choose to label themselves as vaguely right-of-center. In this analysis, becoming a member of a major party means no more than deciding which first-round election to vote in. The parties arent so much civil society organizations that have their major internal decisions shaped by electoral law, as features of the electoral law that for historical reasons are named after formerly significant institutions in civil society.

It has been mentioned, but the Democrats keep stagnating/drifting center because the Left/Progressives always find an excuse not to vote for them.
The Republicans have gone further right because those people turn out and vote for them.

realnifty1 posted...

It has been mentioned, but the Democrats keep stagnating/drifting center because the Left/Progressives always find an excuse not to vote for them.
The Republicans have gone further right because those people turn out and vote for them.

And before anyone says this isn't true, look at how people react anytime Cortez doesn't come out calling people like Pelosi a decrepit old bag who should jump off a cliff and instead works with them.

Can't.

America's political system heavily enforces two-party shenanigans, and the people in power we'd need to change that are the two parties.

Furthermore voters refuse to switch to a 3rd party because they fear they'd simply split their ideological wing's vote and throw the election to the opposing established party.

So unfortunately we're doomed to constant infighting because nobody wants to facilitate a clean break between groups who very clearly don't agree with eachother very much.

Also realistically there are probably not enough progressives, or at least full-on economic and social progressives (ex. AOC), to win nationally. Before considering the clobbering from AIPAC, the mainstream media, corporations, and similar wealthy forces.

Tl;dr: We're cooked.

LightSnake posted...

Some Progressives operate on a belief everyone already agrees with them and they're super popular except for the Dems repressing them, so they're not really big on "convince people"

They're not big on "convince people" since the people at the top can't be convinced. That's why the fresh young maverick David Hogg wants to just throw those people out, using age as an amusing pretense given recent events.

They don't even bother to convince the voters. Hogg isn't some big progressive star, either. He just went about this the worst way possible.

Yes, but they wont, and the establishment dems will be as hard on the splinter party as they should be on the Republicans.

LightSnake posted...

They don't even bother to convince the voters.

Democratic primary voters value order, seniority, and proven leadership. If the party leaders can't be convinced then primary voters can't either.

Establishment Dems. basically only lose to progressives when they either have some massive scandal or go full AWOL and live in a different district while only ever showing up for campaign season. Basically, they need to make an error, progressives can't actually force out an inoffensive mainstream Dem. Dems don't take a chance on pie in the sky newbies when what they already have "works".

LightSnake posted...

Hogg isn't some big progressive star, either. He just went about this the worst way possible.

Eh, he somehow managed to convince James Carville that he had a point, and James Carville is one of the most establishment Democrats to ever establishment Democrat. It's shocking he made any headway there.

So Hogg decided to not even try to convince voters and instantly bragged he wasn't even going to try to do the job he won an election for?

And this is okay because he won over....a dude nobody cares about at all?

LightSnake posted...

So Hogg decided to not even try to convince voters and instantly bragged he wasn't even going to try to do the job he won an election for?

And this is okay because he won over....a dude nobody cares about at all?

Hogg isn't running for government office, he's trying to shift party strategy, and flipping Democratic big wigs is what gets that done. The candidates he funds are the ones who have to convince voters.

SecretBase posted...

Hogg isn't running for government office, he's trying to shift party strategy, and flipping Democratic big wigs is what gets that done. The candidates he funds are the ones who have to convince voters.

Hogg was elected to raise money for Democrats to beat Republicans. He refused to do that.