You're viewing part of a thread.
No. It's because yall gave the democratic party near ties instead of complete blowouts that would force strategy change. Just one 80-20 election would have changed everything. Republican voters are voting for what they want while you sad pseudo intellectuals support what you don't.
Uhh… you know, usually if someone loses that hard in popular consensus, it’s a pretty widely accepted strategy to get their policies closer to the ones who won.
Like how after three consecutive Republican terms, the left propped up Clinton.
Not how it works long term. You make your party very different than the winner, give an actual choice to be made. When things go to shit under the incumbents, provided your party members can give compelling reasons their ideas and policy will succeed. Or they're just sick of the incumbent and want a change. Within a year there's gonna be a complete blow out of the Liberal party in Canada and replacement by a quite different conservative party. There was a time the Liberal and PC parties leaders and policies were nearly identical, watching those debates was surreal, them angrily saying the same thing back n forth at each other in different words. The PC party no longer exists, has been replaced by an actual conservative party that does quite well, already has had a ten year prime minister despite only being a party since 1990.
80-20 blowout for who?
This sort of thing happens in other countries. The Conservative party in Canada (federally) is not the same party as the previous Conservative party. After Brian Mulroney, the party got blown out so bad it lost official party status, theyd been around since 1850. The current conservative party is the renamed Reform party, founded 1988 or so. Went from a new party to governance in roughly 14 years. Ever now and then, the media still tries to call them "Tories" but they're not, that party died, federally. Still exists in some provinces on a "state" level, Doug Ford is one, premier of Ontario, but works fairly closely with Federal Liberals more than Federal Conservatives.
Of the Democrats. What I'm saying that if just once in the last thirty years, there had been one definitive blow out of that party, all these silly debates of "lesser evil" and "you have to vote" would be moot, as they'd not be running literal garbage anymore.
No argument from me, I think leftists should caucus with neo-libs and stop virtue signaling through non voting or going third party. If we focused on practical actions, Democrats would get that 80-20 blowout and stop ignoring the left. It's the idealistic non-voters preventing that blowout, doing look at me.
No, it's the people voting for the lesser evil for 30 years preventing it. Yall shouldve just all voted republican en masse in 2000, or 2008. One decisive loss. Too late now. Trump is back with a narrow win come November. I don't think Americans understand what a protest vote really is,
That's crackpipe logic. How exactly does that help anyone? That just pushes Dems further towards the Overton-blasted center to try to scoop moderates. This train of thought makes zero sense, and betrays a profound ignorance of the American political landscape.
It's not. These very close races is what did that.
Homie I'm not gonna "Nuh-uh" "Yuh-huh" your unfounded hypotheticals. Your assertions need more substantial justification than your personal vibes, which you have not even begun to provide.
looks at what has happened over decades dude give your head a shake and think. Parties don't change strategy till it quits working. Democrats have never run hard left candidates because yall kept voting for center right candidates.