He had nothing to gain from agreeing to this debate.
They want fence sitters in Pennsylvania who are college educated to see what a blabbering idiot Trump is.
There’s almost no fence sitters. This isn’t your father’s Republican party. It’s a literal christofascist cult where you’re either part of the group or hated, and one of the main prerequisites of even CONSIDERING joining is an intense irrational hatred for anyone with a (D) behind their name, whether progressives like Bernie and AOC, or conservatives like Henry Cuellar and Biden.
The Biden campaign is wasting its time and energy trying to appeal to people who would rather die than ever vote for a Democrat while alienating most of the Democratic base and extinguishing much of the enthusiasm of the ones who still aren’t completely turned off.
Unless they change course dramatically, voter participation will be abysmally low and the orange fascist man-child is going to win and, with the help of Project 2025, is going to dismantle everything resembling democracy, regulations, and protections for any abused minority group.
And the “blue no matter who” apparatchiks are going to victim blame the tens of millions of alienated potential voters rather than blaming the corruption, incompetence, and stubborn refusal to listen to them that alienated them.
After all, they’d rather die than hold the leaders of their own party accountable for their mistakes and shortcomings, no matter how much ignoring it helps the fascist GOP.
On the one hand, he fumbled his words a few times pretty poorly. On the other hand, he didn’t spend an hour blatantly lying.
I was watching CNN’s coverage. I thought Biden did alright, asides from a few notable blunders that he recovered from. CNN’s coverage made it sound like he needed to have his adult diapers changed mid question.
It’s crazy how they’re completely ignoring any substance of the debate and solely focusing on appearances. It’s almost like that’d favour a populist candidate or something.
you are trying to gaslight me. i want the democrats to win so we don’t have trump, and they’re voluntarily trotting out this fucking corpse.
sure, it shouldn’t be about appearances, but it is, because that’s how most people interpret the debates (especially because it’s part of the job for politicians to lie and that isn’t exactly a meaningful shock at this point). that’s the worst i’ve ever seen anybody do in a debate in my life.
I fucking despise Biden for his policy in Palestine. If there was any reasonable chance that they could switch candidates now and still have a shot, I’d totally agree with you.
I think he’s way too old to be president, but I’m sorry to say you’re stuck with a shit decision, and one that’s been engineered to help work against our best interests.
I fully get where you’re coming from, but I’m not trying to gaslight you.
Na. It’s a pretty clear and easy decision. Neither option gonna get ya what you want and need, but one option is actively trying for a disastrous result.
Unfortunately, too many people in the USA say the same thing and mean the opposite candidate.
Regarding Palestine, not a single president would or could have done any different. You made your bed there, now you have to give it money. It’s the same with us here in the UK.
The President has plenty of power here. They can halt shipments like he did one time, which proved he could try that. He could not veto ceasefire deals in the UN. He could assign a better secretary of state that doesn’t run interference for Israel. He could not jump the gun making pro Israel statements or supporting suppressing the protests, than staying otherwise silent when they do things wrong like even kill American aide workers or Palestinian journalists. He could veto laws that get to him. He could rile up the populace to contact their local Congressmen and publish Israel’s wrongdoings in press conferences, while he’s only been doing that for pro-Palestinian “wrong-doing”, often getting the facts wrong in the process. He could threaten Israel harder to let aid through the ground. Even if some of these fail, it shows who he supports at least.
The president could choose to not sign the bill sent by Congress for further funding. Congress might pass it with veto proof majority but it would still be making a statement. So, not exactly true
It’s come to the point where the risk of changing the candidate has to be weighed against the risk of not changing the candidate.
And it has been. The risk of sticking with Biden is the greater one by far. He’s losing the election and showing no willingness to change any of the behaviors that are causing it.
Switching to another candidate might be a controversial choice, but it’s still a safer bet than Biden.
fucking despise Biden for his policy in Palestine
I’m not an American and even I know it is not his policy. It is a result of decades of US-Israel relationships with all kinds of ties between the two countries and has far too many stakeholders than just the head of the state.
Not even Bernie could’ve managed to navigate this shit situation properly.
Bernie would’ve led Bibi by the fucking nose. He’d have recalled his days in the kibbutz and said that Bibi is burning everything good about Israel.
Perhaps. I wish that were the reality we lived in. I also wish Gore won over Bush and we nipped Global warming in the bud. Alas…
I also wish Gore won over Bush
He did win, and then SCOTUS declared the loser of the election POTUS in one of the most catastrophic decisions of any in the history of the world, given the later consequences.
sorry but bernie is a zionist too
He is, but he’s not the type that would kowtow to and enable fascists or fund genocide.
But thats what being a zionist is, you cant be a zionist without supporting the IDF which has been engaged in the constant subjugation and extermination whenever politically possible for decades now.
The president isn’t a king. Bernie would’ve had lot of resistance from within the government, military, and intelligence agencies.
Deep state isn’t just a conservative meme/boogeyman. It definitely exists.
The president isn’t a king
Enough with that ridiculous excuse every time Biden refuses to do things that ARE within his power!
He bypassed Congress by sending many smaller weapons shipments to Israel so that he didn’t need congressional approval and when he halted shipment of 2000lb bombs only, he could have halted shipment of ALL weapons but chose not to.
Furthermore, knowing what they do with them, supplying the fascist apartheid regime of Israel is against both international and US law.
He’s enough of a “king” to keep committing crimes against humanity, but apparently NOT actively breaking the law is outside the bounds of his power 🙄
is not his policy.It is a result of decades of US-Israel relationships with all kinds of ties between the two countries
Yeah it is. Obama said about the Cuban Embargo that “these 50 years have shown that isolation has not worked”, so he changed longstanding policy.
Meanwhile, letting Israel do whatever the fuck they want to Palestinians for 75 years hasn’t made the treatment more just (duh) or the region more stable and peaceful, and the majority of the population realizes that now.
People are demanding of Biden and the rest of the Dem leadership, which are the people with the power to do so, to change the awful status quo of total deference to a fascist apartheid regime and Biden et al are risking the election and thus American democracy by refusing to listen to the people who they are supposed to represent.
An embargo on a small island nation has nothing in common with a key strategic ally in the middle east. Why are we comparing these two? Are you for real now
It has one thing in common and that’s the thing I was referring to:
In both cases, the president has the power to change bad policy, no matter how longstanding.
Obama chose to make the right choice under little to no pressure (except from people adamant that he should do the opposite) while Biden is insisting on the wrong choice in spite of intense pressure and a very significant risk that it’ll cost him the election.
The specifics of Cuba has nothing to do with it.
You’re not addressing the central point of my claim and simply restating your initial statement: that the president can change policy
has the power to change bad policy
while ignoring the key difference between Cuba and Israel. They are completely dissimilar situations with vastly different implications. The progressive left --which cares so much about genocide suddenly (forget Yemen, Syria, where more people have died int he last 6 years by an order of 10 than the entire palestine-israel conflict in the last 100 years)-- made up their mind about Biden long before Oct 7. The only way for Joe to pander to their vote is by accomplishing miracles at this point and I think that ship has sailed a long time ago so I really doubt they are the key demographic that will cost him his election.
I don’t know… I see what you’re saying, but does the president not have the power to take a principled stance on the matter? Maybe I’m being too naïve about what’s realistically possible, but ultimately intended policy decisions have to start at the mouth of the nation’s leader.
He needs to firmly acknowledge and denounce the ongoing genocide in Palestine.
Sure, but didn’t Biden go on a rant of how pro-Israel he is specifically?
He did, and I’m not trying to downplay that in any way. He also called for peace, though, whereas Trump said he was also pro-Israel but thought Israel should finish what they started.
Can someone remind me of the last time a U.S. president took a principled stand on some foreign policy issue? Seriously, I’m not just asking this to be a dick. I’m pretty sure things are set up to ensure this does not ever happen.
Biden has publicly criticized Russia and China before. Every US President has made statements against countries like North Korea or Iran. It’s the literally the least he could do.
Those are things that are in the interest of the US foreign policy agenda.
Biden pulling out of Iraq.
Obama pulled out of Iraq.
Biden pulled out of Afghanistan.
I mean, he certainly did say that he wants to increases taxes on the ultra-wealthy.
It’s not a foreign policy issue, but it’s one that would be unpopular with any rich donors so it perhaps demonstrates some amount of integrity.
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to defend the US. Their foreign policy is stinkier than blue cheese.
Their foreign policy is stinkier than blue cheese.
And doesn’t even compensate by also being delicious, like the cheese does!
Unless you have a significant profit stake in the military industrial complex and/or the fossil fuel industries, of course. Then it’s the most delicious thing ever.
Oh they’re 100% gaslighting you. But they’re also gaslighting themselves, so I guess that makes it fair?
Biden looked like they injected meth into his balls right before he went on stage. Kinda hard to ignore him staring through bits of furniture and smiling at leprechauns.
I’m shocked he performed at all with how high he was. I’d wonder as well if he needed assistance during that whole thing.
CNN can’t help themselves. They need to compete with social media I guess.
I dunno, that debate just made me sad.
CNN can’t help themselves.
I wonder if that has anything to do with CNN’s chairman and CEO, Mark Thompson, ranked by Forbes as the 65th most powerful person in the world. 🤔
Would someone like that benefit from tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy?
Didn’t this guy say that he wanted to makeCNN more “centrist”? So I guess what he meant by that was pull it a few inches to the right…
I don’t think it’s even about candidates, but just focusing on appearances.
That’s what grabs attention and makes money. Even the robotic social media feed algorithms know this.
What makes money for billionaires is influencing who sets their tax rates.
At first I was sad. Then I was very angry. And now I’m scared.
The issue is appearances are all that mattered. I don’t believe anyone who was interested enough in politics to watch that debate was undecided. It’s now time for the campaigns to cut up the debate to use for ads that will actually reach the undecided voters. I feel it’s going to hurt Biden a lot more than Trump.
Yeah, I don’t disagree. Those who make their decisions by disregarding policy are probably not going to be doing the right things for the right reasons anyways.
If they tip the balance and that means a dictatorship, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop it short of global intervention.
I’m hoping the reason this debate was agreed to so early is that the DNC needs to know if they’ve got to work out a plan B. The convention is scheduled for the end of August so until then Biden isn’t the official candidate. Like, if in 2 months they’re polling at 30%, I don’t see how they can go “oh yeah, this is definitely a losing strategy. Let’s stick with it”. Why not switch it up? You’re losing already. The worst that can happen is you still lose.
This is exactly what I’m thinking. So next then, who do they run instead?
BTW remember when like three years ago Biden said multiple times he would only serve one term? smdh
The obvious answer is Harris. The less obvious but I think better option is Buttigieg. He’s not who I would pick ideally, but I think people still remember him and he’s part of the Biden adm.
I’m pretty confident they’re running Biden unless he dies though.
Bootygig would piss a lot of the base off to pass over a POC woman who would literally be president anyways the moment Joe croaks.
He’s probably a better pick for the country, but the DNC doesn’t give a shit about that. I don’t think he’s a particularly strong pick, but he’s better than Harris.
I think the best option to win the election would be to pick someone that’s not a part of the current administration. And we can definitely count on that not happening. The DNC is too up their own ass with everyone getting their compensation for previous “support” once the positions open up.
I agree totally. He’s not the best option, just the best option that’s plausible if we entertain the hypothetical that Joe isn’t running. Also, yeah it probably would piss some people off to skip Harris, so it’s probably her no matter what.
Yeah Trump spent an hour blatantly lying.
But people believe him.
That’s not a win.
It should be the media’s responsibility to thoroughly fact check both parties. If that means they have to pre-submit their primary answers and read them off a teleprompter, then so be it.
You’re right, it wasn’t a win, but it should have been.
I thought Biden did alright
He just didn’t. In any other previous cycle, it would not have been considered acceptable. The bar has gotten very low.
Biden looked senile, and Trump looked like regular, crazy Trump. The senility will do more for voters than Trump being Trump.
Exactly, people expect Trump to be Trump, but they expect Biden to not be senile.
What a sorry state of affairs.
That is not how democracy should be. Americans do deserve better.
Could be worse it could be dolt 45-34 counts.
What did I miss?
There was a debate last night and Biden made rental sales of The Mummy obeselete.
Democrats will defend it because “atleeast he’s not raving lunatic Trump”, but if that’s the best their party can offer, we’re in a dire state of affairs.
Yeah but like… At least he’s not a raving lunatic??? Fuck.
He can’t simply ‘not be a lunatic’. He has to be more popular than the lunatic or he doesn’t get to be president. And bad news, many like the lunatic, especially when he lies.
CNN just aired the presidential debate about 5 hours ago.
Here’s a shortened version. (You’ll understand the level of despair within the first five minutes.)
TLDW: Trump lying and ignoring the question to try to slander Biden like a 10y/o trying to displace blame after getting caught bullying. Biden was was talking like someone with the grogginess just getting woken up in the middle of the night then smoking a joint right before coming on. (i.e. We’re fucked either way.)
“They don’t like us and they think we’re stupid”
Ah, trump has discovered US-americans’ stereotype in many countries (that has already existed for decades at least).
Backwards politics and worse education will only strengthen that stereotype. The way to change that are progressive politics and huge investments in education.
Anyway that really is a mess for both. I get that the republicans sent Trump again since he got a fascism-like personal cult, but why did the democrats send Biden?
Can they still change their candidate?
Anyway this is a perfect example to show why a democracy should have more than two parties.
Can they still change their candidate?
Yes, he is not the “official” candidate until the convention in August.
Anyway this is a perfect example to show why a democracy should have more than two parties.
Unfortunately, the way our voting works, it is nearly impossible for a third-party candidate to be viable.
i.e. We’re fucked either way.
Except Trump is going to wreck the democracy even further and ruin world politics by letting his dictatorship pals do whatever they want.
The level of fuckedness his second term will cause it’s incomparable to anything imagined. Basically he will create the antithesis of what America was supposed to be.
So seeing him as an equally bad candidate is completely misguided.
Biden was was talking like someone with the grogginess just getting woken up in the middle of the night then smoking a joint right before coming on. (i.e. We’re fucked either way.)
As much as I don’t want to give Biden free passes just because he’s not Trump, I feel like I haven’t seen anyone mentioning the time limit set for responses during the debate. It clearly was not in his favor. Trump can talk your ear off about any nonsense he can dream of at a moments notice.
Biden has always had to take time to think. Look at his speeches, look at the times he responds to reporters. There’s always pauses and gaps between responses where he has to think.
My favorite moment was when Biden lied about Hamas rejecting the ceasefire deal and said israel accepted it.
And then Trump said “No israel is the party that wants to continue this war… and you should let them go and let them finish the job”.
Omg did Trump really say that? The first part of the sentence is true (and the only true thing I’ve heard him say in the debate so far), but the second as a follow up to that is plain fucking insane. Holy shit. Hitler level rhetoric on display.
The democrats really want to lose this election.
Biden’s cognitive problems were laid bare to the whole world to see. imagine a president of the strongest country in the world.
brace yourselves for another 4 years of Trump.
Biden’s cognitive problems were laid bare to the whole world to see. imagine a president of the strongest country in the world.
So you didn’t hear the diarreah of the mouth that Trump spewed? It seemed to me Trump was not even aware of what they were asking of him in half the questions
Trump has been trump for ever, he talks nonsense and still got elected , But Biden decline is truly noticeable I don’t think his performance will convince the undecided in the swing states, because that’s where the election gets decided
So what you are saying is:
“Hmmm I get to choose between a turd sandwich and a burger. We tried the turd sandwich before and almost died of food poisoning so we went with the burger and noticeably, everybody avoided the hospital after that meal. The burger seems to be in decline though, they are serving it cold now… but the turd sandwich is just as smeared and stinky as before… I guess we got to try the turd sandwich again?”
Yeah, keep saying stupid shit, you’re part of the reason why Trump is about to have a 2nd term.
Yep. I don’t know if it’s malice or incompetence, but the Democrats are about to lose. Now, Biden may be cognitively fine to be president, but it’s clear he’s not fit to win an election. Sadly being good at the first doesn’t mean you’ll be good at the second. And if you don’t win, you can’t govern.
Democrats raise a lot more money when a Republican is in the White House
Doesn’t matter when there won’t be another election to spend it on.
The conspiracy theorists all say Joe is supposed to step down and Gavin Newsom somehow is added to the ticket which then will win. These conspiracy theorists also say that candidates are selected in advance by the powers that be and it’s all pagentry to deceive the gullible masses. Perhaps you are supposed to feel this way as part of the pagentry?
i will retreat into isolation for the next four years. let me know if somebody kills trump.
Be the bullet you wish to see in the world.
As a former president, he gets protection from the Secret Service.
Stroke Victim vs. Shitting Baby
Like if you don’t already knew, both of them are not fit to be the president of United States of America.
I don’t know any Democrat that wants Joe. I’ve seen more support for Hilary Clinton at this point and no one likes here either.
This is just a pro-Russia talking point.
Actually, no matter who wins, America will remain a glorious perfect city on a hill that is the envy of the world forever.
You forgot the /s
Needs more fire, but yes
I’ve been chuckling about danger since 2016 when the democratic party pushed through hillary and then lost against a clown. The democratic party does not instill confidence (except in their ability to sabotage themselves).
They would rather hand the country to the insane Nazi clown than do anything that night upset their sponsors.
There are troves of leftist literature that detail how liberals would sooner side with fascism peacefully than risk any kind of violence. They’re being vindicated by current events globally. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds. They will do anything to maintain the order that keeps them as about half of the ruling body of the country.
As a European I always wonder why Americans don’t create an alternative party to the Democrats, after all it is the party that in 2016 cheated in the primaries so that Hillary would win and still lost to an idiot. If you create a real left-wing party you can seriously propose things like socialized healthcare just as the right is not shy about proposing crazy things like banning abortion.
The only difference is that they have been successful in colonizing the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is simply an outdated instrument that no longer represents its own bases.
As a European I always wonder why Americans don’t create an alternative party to the Democrats
The average American is too stupid to handle more than 2 options. American’s like everything easy and straightforward. Black and white. Good and evil. They have a very simplistic world view.
Or maybe we are stuck with the two parties we have.
For a third party to appear, one of the current ones has to fracture. Neither party is willing to do that because fracturing your own party guarantees the other party wins due to FPTP.
Right now especially, noone trusts the republicans to run the country while the democrats re-sort themselves into their new parties.
Even then, it might be those two Democrat parties splitting their own vote for many elections to come, essentially conceding the country for a decade or more.
If the parties we had now were more moderate and closer together on everyday issues, it wouldnt feel like picking between shit and poop, it would feel like choosing between vanilla and chocolate ice cream, which both are valid and good and have their own merits.
Americans aren’t stupid, we are frustrated, and in some states there is still a strong pressure from religion, school, and government that causes people to learn the wrong ideals, and in some cases complete falsehoods. My favorite is the states that contradict themselves or avoid logic at all turns.
We recently had a state pass a law including the ten commandments in every classroom in the state, but the approved list they are putting up is ELEVEN items long.
I was probably all over the place in this reply but I hope I made some sense towards your post.
I don’t know, I have never lived in the United States, but I would like to think that there are still enough intelligent people for a third party to position itself as a real alternative and end up completely replacing the Democratic Party, which will leave two parties again, now that I think it
Wall yourself through the process of creating this third party. Let’s say its this leading edge european-style-leftist party that cares about people, for real this time.
This party starts growing slowly, but where do the people come from? Maybe some people who avoided politics altogether until this new party came along, but most people will likely come from the Democratic party.
So the party is building and the democrat party is shrinking, while the republican party stays the same. They may even see some growth from the “fracturing” of the Democrat party. They start winning more and more elections as instead of a race coming out 46% to 44%, it comes out 46% to 36% to 10%.
That ratio keeps building in favor of the new leftist party, but we lose seats and elections every cycle. And then eventually (maybe stupidly hopeful?) The new left party completely takes over the democrat party which ceases to exist.
Now we are back at a two party system, but have lost the country for maybe 5, 10, 20+ years? You could argue this is a better idea than what we currently do, which is try to change the party you are part of slowly over time with voting and campaigning, but I personally wouldnt say that myself.
Well, I don’t know, like I said before I’m not American and I don’t know all the ins and outs of the American electoral system, but if this is really impossible, I’ll just stop thinking of the United States as a democracy in any way. Changing the democrats party from within has proven impossible since Hillary’s rigged election in 2016, moving her policies to the left runs into a constant wall of “this is how we will lose the center”, well, I don’t know, I just think the system is so broken that either something different is done or it’s not going to be fixed
Well I don’t expect it to happen suddenly jut corporate america has already started its decline, and with that its power will decline as well.
That’s more of a faith thing I suppose, I don’t have much evidence to back it up with besides anecdotes about my own community.
Oh fuck off, the reason is we have FPTP elections and there’s too much hanging on an election to justify fracturing the country for four years while we establish a viable 3rd party.
As a European I always wonder why Americans don’t create an alternative party to the Democrats
A third party has no chance in a first past the post system. If you create an alternative party to the Democrats, you’re just making sure the Republicans win every election.
The British have a first past the post system and more than two parties, something else is wrong in that equation
USA doesn’t have a parliamentary system.
But you have a parliament (congress and senate), right? Why isn’t there a third party in these chambers?
No, the executive is compartmentalized and voted for separately, so there’s no dissolution of parliament, negotiations over forming a government, etc. Seems like a small difference, but structurally it’s a large and impactful distinction.
I know and understand the difference between parliamentarism and presidentialism, but I am not talking about the election of presidents exclusively, I am talking about the political system of the country in general. If 20~30% of the chambers are in the hands of a third party, the country becomes more plural and public debates better represent opinions and I don’t understand why that is not possible.
I understand, but how is it viable, from the standpoint of the opposition, to be anything other than a unified party in opposition if there’s no chance to bargain for a position in a coalition government, to form a coalition to win an election to make a new government, etc? That doesn’t make any sense, why would anyone split like that?
There are a few independents, most notably Bernie Sanders.
Americans are tought from elementary school that voting third party is basically a sin, its repeated on all forms of media and treated as fact for every single election regardless of the situation. When people say things like ‘America is the most propagandized country in the world’ this is part of what they’re referring to.
Americans somehow believe they’re just too different from all those countries that made things like public transport, healthcare, and more than two political parties work. They believe those things simply wont work here even if they work elsewhere.
I don’t know, I don’t deny what you say, but as I was answering to another, then the United States is not a democracy anymore, it is a plutocracy where a few elites can decide policies, but the population lacks the capacity to change the trends even if there is a broad consensus for it.
this is sad
You are correct sir.
That’s just it, the system was created as a two-party system, and two-party is a hugely beneficial to the champions of that same system who make the laws, the same people who would have to make the law to change the system to make it harder for themselves to “win” but better for us.
You would have to have people in charge who were willing to give up their power to make things better for the people as a whole, and sadly there’s basically nobody left who gives a shit about the population as a whole. They’re all selfish as shit. About half are currently more evil, but they’re all out of touch and working for nobody but themselves and their wealthy benefactors.
It was not created as a 2-party system, there have been several other successful political parties in US history. We’ve had US presidents elected from 3 other parties plus an Independent. Federalists, Whigs, and “Democratic-Republicans” are the 3 other parties who had Presidents in the WH.
When was the last time the Prime Minister of the UK was not a Tory or from Labor?
In 2010 they had a coalition government made up of Torys and Liberals, in Great Britain the executive power is not just the Prime Minister, it is the entire Council of Ministers and it was not made up only of Torys. Obviously a coalition government is not possible in the American system, but a third party being influential in the cameras is and I still don’t see because it is impossible
Why? The same reason the 1/3 burger flopped. Majority of mericans are dumb af. Splitting off from the D would give the R a sure win. That’s the only reason they aren’t doing it.
The same reason the 1/3 burger flopped.
I think that was just A&W flopping. Braums did just fine with 1/3rd lb burgers. And in the south no less.
Hardees / Carl’s Jr have made many a dollar selling their 1/3 lb burgers for many years as well.
Americans have tried to create third parties before, but due to the electoral college and the first past the post voting system, new parties are destined to fail and not win any votes. So the current two party system is the natural state of America.
The only way to change this is to get rid of the electoral college and the FPTP system, like that’s ever going to happen.
I dont think FPTP is an issue, here in my country, despite FPTP we have seen many national parties rise, collapse since independence, regional parties’ influence in national politics also increased exponentially in recent elections. I know FPTP is kind of rotten but dont think thats stopping smaller parties to rise.
First Past the Post doesn’t guarantee complete nationwide hegemony of two parties. There can be areas where the vote is between a mainstream party and a regional party, because the other mainstream party doesn’t show up. This happens in the UK all the time.
They don’t take a lot, but those seats are enough that the big parties often have to work with them to cobble together a majority.
Nor is First Past the Post the only factor. There’s plenty of southern states that have runoff voting. Their last century of state level offices are just as filled with Democrats and Republicans as anywhere else.
The US is unique in that not only are their only two real parties, but those two parties dominate at every level of government.
Canada also has a FPTP system and we have like 5 federal parties. But it’s also a Westminster parliamentary system that allows temporary alliances, minority governments, support and supply agreements and other power-sharing arrangements.
The American system is unique in their imperial presidency and aristocratic Senate and supreme Court, where so much power is concentrated in so few people for such a long time that every election becomes a high stakes cosmic event.
Canada also has a FPTP system and we have like 5 federal parties.
Canadians were promised electoral reform recently, what happened?
Politicians didn’t keep their promises after being elected.
Well, the issue of the electoral college is something that I don’t fully understand, in the end from Europe I follow American politics relatively, but the English also have the first past the post system and they have more than one party.
Perhaps it would be necessary to start setting it up from more local elections or to the Congress/Senate, where a small but more mobilized mass could be relevant. With a relevant percentage representation in the chambers and/or state positions it could stop being crazy.
I don’t know, it’s an outside opinion, maybe it’s impossible, but if it is then American democracy is not only dysfunctional, it wouldn’t be a democracy at all, It would be a plutocracy with all the letters
I think it could work if the third party sets reasonable goals and steps to achieve a difference in America.
I like the idea of focusing on local elections, it could start out as a network of local communities that grows and grows, and when it becomes big enough for a national conversation, if it does, then we start on the federal politics.
We might find its not even necessary to continue on to federal government, as enough small communities change and it becomes the norm, the federal government will reflect that.
The electoral college is mainly for the president. Each state is “worth” x number of electoral votes (actual people who do the real voting, they just are supposed to follow the publics vote.) so running for president becomes a game of “how many points can I gather using various states to win” instead of “how can I appeal to as many people as possible to win.” It’s a clusterfuck and it leaves candidates ignoring states they think aren’t worth spending money and time in.
Well, if that only applies at the presidential level, a party can be created that competes at the legislative and state level. When it is established with enough power at that level, running at the presidential level might not be such a risky game.
You can get a successful new party but only if one of the two big ones completely self-destructs and creates a power vacuum. And even then the new party will probably be a faction of the defunct one. There definitely won’t be a three-party constellation for more than a brief period.
completely self-destructs
Well the GOP is on its way, and if they reform into a moderately sensible party, the dems will have to move left to actually differentiate themselves.
I’m dreaming though.
The GOP is well on the way to creating a minority rule one party state.
The American voting system is not Proportional Vote and instead is massivelly Mathematically rigged with (for Congress) huge single representative electoral circles which in some cases have borders designed exactly to make it near impossible to defeat incumbents (aka Gerrymandering), with (for the Senate) even larger electoral circles (literally, each state) with 2 representatives, and something somewhat similar for Presidential elections (though worse since ultimatelly it all adds up to a single representative electoral circle with 300 million voters for a position with lots of power, unlike most European countries - with some notable exceptions like France - which either don’t have a President or have one which is mainly symbolic and has little power).
Further, the very nature of the system will, beyond the Mathematical rigging, push the people who would otherwise go for a 3rd party to instead go for the “useful vote” (i.e. chose an electable candidate instead of the one they want) - it’s not by chance that the heaviest argument of the Biden campaign was “vote Biden to defeat Trump”.
Since new parties take various electoral cycles to grow, it’s pretty impossible for them to do so because it’s Mathematically near impossible for them to even establish a foothold that shows its earlier supporters they do have a chance to one day influence what laws are made in the US and how the country is ruled, so new parties invariable lose steam after the first or second election they go through.
You can see something similar to this in the UK, were for example the Green Party gets 1 million votes out of 40 million (2.5% of votes) but only 1 member of parliament out of 300 (0.33%), and remember this is with lots of people chosing electable candidates from other parties, so the Green Party natural vote would likely be larger in a different system
This stands in marked contrast with, for example, The Netherlands, were vote is Proportional and there are 15 parties in their Parliament (Tweede Kamer).
Jack Johnson vs Johnson Jack
We’re done. Vote democrat all you want, the people in the swing states vote for people that help them, and so far they are looking at Trump.
I am in SF Bay Area in CA, like literally the 4th largest economy in the world, my vote is worthless.
What happened? I live in the US but I don’t pay attention to much of anything
