6mo ago

The same goes for third parties in First Past the Post systems.

You're viewing a single thread.

147 comments

The destruction of the republican party via increased voter and representation rights represents the single greatest possible "progressive" leftward shift of the US political window. Emphasis on "possible". Conservatives are a minority party and their extreme views do not represent modern America.
The road to a more progressive, equitable future is through the democrats. It doesn't end there.
Republicans winning offices means more long lasting legislation to clear, more conservative judicial appointments, etc.
Teaching THIS (2024) democratic party a lesson is worthless if it comes with 30+ years of conservative judicial backsliding.
- Teaching THIS (2024) democratic party a lesson is worthless if it comes with 30+ years of conservative judicial backsliding.
  And on top of that, when has "teaching the party a lesson" actually worked out in the peoples' favor?
  
  It hasn't ever. Always vote for the lesser evil, it's less evil.
- With election reform we don't need for the Republican party to stop existing to get more viable options in the voting booth.
  
  Very true, my point is the current republican party is trumped up by systemic inertia. They are a minority position.
- The destruction of the republican party via increased voter and representation rights represents the single greatest possible “progressive” leftward shift of the US political window.
  Absolute pipe dream. They aren't even going to lose control of the Senate. They'll have dozens of governorships and legislative majorities when this election is over.
  Liberals are fucking delusional if they think this election changes any of that.
  
  My guy I'm saying it's the goal in general not this election. It is the existential goal of anyone left of maga.
  You should review the electoral college maps compared to population, in addition to gerrymandering. Democrats actively seek to improve voter access, proper districting and so on. If those topics are continued and eventually successful, the republican party is exposed for the minority population that is is. Republicans cannot win in a "fair" fight.
  Lastly my point regarding judicial appointments is critical here: redistricting and voter access issues are won in the courtroom. Reducing conservative appointments is absolutely possible with a Harris win.
  Delusional is thinking all this happens in one term, while ignoring the backslide of progress a trump term would mean.
  
  it’s the goal in general not this election.
  One Party Rule is the goal of both parties, and equally unattainable for similar reasons.
  Democrats actively seek to improve voter access, proper districting and so on
  They do not, as evidenced by the failure to advance DC Statehood when they had a majority.
  my point regarding judicial appointments is critical here
  Republicans will control the Senate at the end of this election. Harris will not shift the balance of power under these conditions.
  thinking all this happens in one term
  Do you think this is the first term Dems and GOPers have been struggling for power?
  
  I do not. Why would I?
  Trump has made judicial appointments a key goal of his first term, so it stands to reason he'd do the same now. Avoiding that is progress, even if Harris gets zero.
  Edit: to avoid playing nickel and dime debate club:
  The democratic party is wildly imperfect and often ineffectual. I'm not satisfied, and I'm not cheerleading for them.
  Harris may also be wildly imperfect and often ineffectual. That's still better than the massive equality, stability and integrity sink trump represents and that's what I'm arguing for.
  
  Trump has made judicial appointments a key goal of his first term
  McConnell made it a key goal. That's why he blocked Garland for 10 months under Obama.
  Schumer has not. That's why he let a SCOTUS nomination fall into Trump's hands a mere 10 weeks before Biden took office.
  
  Please note I had a late edit that should head off this back and forth on specifics.

147 comments