• LoreleiSankTheShip@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not an American, but yikes does this have “Vote with us… Or else!” vibes.

    That’s not to say I support Trump, but I personally don’t think this is the way to convince fence-sitters at all.

    • axx@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Entirely agree. The people responsible for trump getting votes are the people voting for Trump.

      Tactical voting is bullshit of the highest order and the undeniable sign of a fucked up political and voting system, not some sort of political astuteness.

      If your voting system can’t allow people to express their true choice, you should throw it away. Yes, that means the majority of voting systems around the world are bad and need to be changed. Getting people to recognise that this is even an issue in the first place is a huge battle.

  • someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Abstaining or voting 3rd party to “make Dems listen” doesn’t work. If anyone thinks they can play Mexican Standoff, you can’t because the Dems have an out: the center voter. Every time they lose, they go to the center to find voters.

    And remember they need all 3 of presidency, house of representatives, and senate to pass pretty much anything. If they don’t have all 3 they will go to the center to find voters. Some people call this rachet effect, but really they’re looking for voters. Want them to stop ‘racheting’? Then give them consistent and overwhelming victories.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And remember they need all 3 of presidency, house of representatives, and senate to pass pretty much anything

      The odds of Democrats keeping the Senate seem dismal. So it sounds like we’re giving the party license to do nothing for another two years

    • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve thought about that recently.

      In Germany, the 2 historically biggest parties were SPD (used to be liberal-democrat) and CDU (conservative) and they often were the ones tugging it out while the smaller parties were filling in as coalition partners for one or the other.

      Over time, the SPD splintered into several semi-big offshoot parties (Linke, for example) while the CDU stayed as a whole. As a result, CDU is now commonly a favorite for getting most votes in an election.

      Is that consistent with politics across the globe? And if, why do liberal or center parties tend to split up more than conservatives?

      • PrimeMinisterKeyes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Counterexample: The European Parliament. IMHO, it looks like 4 right-wing groups, 2 left-wing ones and 2 centrist ones. While the exact positioning could be argued over, the right wing is quite certainly more fragmented than the left is.

      • someguy3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Dems need all 3 (presidency, house of reps, Senate) to do pretty much anything. They’ve had that for [drumroll please] 4 out of the last 24 years. Or 6 of the last 32 years. Or 6 of the last 44 fucking years.

        • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Dems need all 3 (presidency, house of reps, Senate) to do pretty much anything.

          Thats not how politics works buddy. If what you said were true neither the dems or republicans would have passed any bills in the history of the “republic”. Clearly theres also horse trading, and bribery/lobbying you are pretending dont exist in order to make this weak point.

        • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’ve had that for [drumroll please] 4 out of the last 24 years

          It was significantly shorter than that when you consider Senate control to be 60, which is what’s needed to bypass the fillibuster.

          • someguy3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Supermajority was 4 months, out of the last 44 years. But whenever I mention that people think I’m fixated on that for some reason.

            *Oh downvoted already. Some people really don’t like hearing this.