If anything, RFK will split the Republican (Russian) vote
This author is a dipshit
I don't know this author, but when I see articles like this I always think it's a reverse Hanlon's razor. I refuse to believe the people reporting on it are stupid and assume they're fucking evil.
I said this in another post, but i believe older democrats who dont keep up with the nonsense of politics could very well just see the name Kennedy and vote for him. If we werent in a very red state i would be worried about my grandfather in his 80s doing exactly that.
That isn’t what polling shows.
Polls dont show anything good. They're a pr stunt at best.
Whereas your non-polling-evidence-based feeling is legit.
RFK Jr. is a piece of dog shit drying in the hot summer sun. I can't imagine in any universe this guy (who makes me wish there was a Sirhan Sirhan Jr.) draining votes from Joe Biden when their views are diametrically opposed.
Really, really low-information voters might see the last name and think he's like JFK.
A shocking amount of Republican antics suddenly made sense to me when I realized they're just targeting low-information voters.
When was that, when Trump said "I love the poorly educated"?
His little off-script comments are always interesting to me, because they give insight to what he's thinking.
We all already knew that stuff though. It’s not like when he says this shit out loud it’s something we didn’t already deduce quite easily.
That's most of his base.
RFK is the wish.com JFK.
I support Kennedy. RFK’s sister, who said she’ll vote for Biden over her own brother. lol
They run this same story about third party candidates every election year. The problem is they never show that the people who voted for the third party candidate would've definitely gone to one party or the other. People know what's at stake, why do you assume people voting for RFK Jr would've voted for Biden? There's nothing about his platform that is very left leaning. The most left leaning thing about him is his last name.
Edit: Just as an example, I voted for Nader in 2000. I'm someone who would've voted for Gore otherwise. But guess what? I was voting in a state that wasn't in close contention at all, so I could vote for a third party without really changing the calculus of who would get elected. The idea that votes for third parties are fungible with votes for major party candidates is just not accurate.
Because it's true every time, and it works a lot. Gore would have won if Nader wasn't on the ticket, and guess what? The Republicans have been propping up third-party candidates for years.
Hell, in Florida they got some random dude on the ticket just because he had the same name as the Democrat -- and it worked.
Intuitively it doesn't even make sense in this case though. Biden is running as the safe ordinary establishment candidate. Trump and RFK Jr are going for the right wing wacko conspiracy theory crowd.
Unless I see data to the contrary, I'm going to assume that RFK Jr siphons more votes from Trump.
I know several people that have fallen for his bullshit who voted for Biden last time.
That's kind of the problem we have now. Why would someone that was a Biden supporter flip to RFK, when RFK is very clearly significantly to the right, and way off in crazy-land compared to Biden? I don't know. But given how likely Trump supporters are to show up, Biden really can't afford to lose too many to RFK. Or West, for that matter, who is closer to what I'd prefer politically.
Except they're talking about Vermont, where there are open primaries, meaning they could have been Republicans trying to spoil the democratic nomination. I find that far more believable than a Bernie bro voting for Trump.
I find that far more believable than a Bernie bro voting for Trump.
I don't. I was--am--a Sanders supporter, and I'm still pissed that twice the Democratic party has done everything it could to sink Sanders. I voted for Stein in 2016--in a state that easily went blue--because I honestly didn't think Trump could be as awful as he was. I figured he'd be run-of-the-mill Republican, rather than trying to go straight fascist. I figured, correctly that my vote would make very little difference in a state that is as reliably blue, albeit NIMBY, as it is.
I was, of course, entirely wrong about how awful Trump could be, and was.
In 2020 I voted for Biden, although I'm still pissed that yet again the DNC threw all their weight behind him, instead of the more principled candidate.
And I'll vote for him again, because any other vote is going to be hurting people that I care about. Even though Cornell West has, IMO, better principles than Biden, voting for West in a state that only went blue because the 'vote was rigged' last time would not be a good idea if I don't want to support a decent into fascism.
Why don't you believe it that it's more about the open primary in this one state than Bernie voters voting for Trump?
You voted for Bernie and still voted for Clinton after all the bullshit that happened within the party and so did I. I would need to see equivalent data from a closed primary state to even begin to believe in this possibility. From their side, it'd be the equivalent of one of us voting for Trump in an open primary back in 2016 when nobody thought he'd win the general in order to spoil the Republican race for the general election.
You voted for Bernie and still voted for Clinton
No, I voted for Stein. I said that; literally the second sentence there. The state I lived in at the time went strongly for Clinton.
Okay well I added that as an edit and wasn't able to reread your comment while writing it. Either way the point still stands that you didn't jump to Trump after Bernie lost the primary and I don't believe this analysis as it was done in a single state with an open primary. Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is the most likely and Republicans trying to spoil the Democratic ticket makes a lot more sense than Bernie bros voting for Trump.
Pollsters do ask "if the election was held today, between X and Y, who would you vote for", for multiple combinations of candidates, so you can infer some of those opinions. I don't think they explicitly ask people to rank their choices, or at least I haven't seen those polls.
I believe the latest polls show Bobby Kennedy Jr. taking slightly more support from Trump. It makes sense. In order to support Kennedy, you have to listen to him first.
The conspiracy theorist label stops the left from even considering him. The voters who are more likely to give him a chance are on the right. They don’t care if he’s called a conspiracy theorist.
I think it's a mix that varies state from state based off the latest polling.
Could be, but it’s likely to tend toward Trump voters as time goes on. They’re less resistant to someone being unpopular in the mainstream media.
Being called crazy by the media is a prerequisite for right wing viewers to trust a candidate.
now that he's made a decision, it really just takes one look at who his running mate is that would cause any Leftist to walk away.
Idk he really appeals to my desire to have a stupider, less popular trump. And he's a Kennedy!
/s, because this is the internet
Vote Blue No Matter Who! /s
The problem is the people running the DNC
At some point, we're going to have to make an actual left wing party. Because the only thing the national DNC cares about is money
They don't even know how to spend it effectively when they get it.
Socialist Party of America, Socialist Alternative, The Communist Party of the USA, and plenty others have been trying to run left of the Democratic Party for a century, it won't work in a FPTP voting system, converting the Democrats into a Socialist party would literally be easier.
If you want a left wing party other than the Dems, you're gonna have to change FPTP first.
Or or, and hear me out here. We could do what has happened many different times throughout history. And take over/replace the structure of a party. The Democrats already ignore state and local elections across several red states. What if we lefties/socialist/etc instead of trying to prop up separate parties and separate candidates that always fail. Fielded our own candidates who more closely match our own ideals. And run them as Democrats in these areas. Focusing on funding them ourselves as well as whatever money the DNC apparatus might provide. We might actually start winning. And if we start winning we might actually be able to replace those in the DNC. And if we replace those in the DNC. Things might actually get better.
Isn't that what they said?
converting the Democrats into a Socialist party would literally be easier
Yeah it was, but they added more context on how it was possible, so I wouldn't really say it was redundant.
This is what the DSA has been trying to do and succeeding in for 30 years with candidates like AOC
Succeeding? They’ve elected a tiny handful of candidates over the last thirty years so now that’s success? Lol, sounds like something a right wing Democrat would say, because that’s a very convenient result for the party itself. You’re either blindly loyal to this party or you must think we’re stupid.
They’ve elected a tiny handful of candidates over the last thirty years so now that’s success?
Almost all of which were elected in the past decade, that's rather quick for a political change as large as that. And more are being elected every year.
The DSA literally helped Bernie almost win the presidential primary, that wouldn't of even come close to happening if the average Democrat was some right wing anti-socialist hawk.
They propped up a Zionist who is now campaigning for Genocide Joe
When the military is deployed to crush protestors and trans people have their existence banned by Trump I'll know who to thank.
Kinda weird yall insist on calling him Genocide Joe.
I don't care what nonsense falls out of his demented mouth as long as he is sending bombs to an ongoing genocide
Do you really and honestly believe that Joe Biden Is so evil that he's been sitting there relishing in the deaths of civilians for months?
And you do realize that sending weapons is not the sole discretion of the president? About 75% if congress keeps voting to send those weapons.
I could care less what he feels as he snuffs out the lives of children in Gaza.
Last Monday, the U.S. State Department deemed Israel in compliance with President Biden’s landmark national security memorandum issued in February. That memorandum required that recipients of U.S. weapons must demonstrate compliance with international law, and that they not interfere with or block the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Yes, it's absolutely in his discretion, and the lies his State Department are telling to continue doing so are outrageous and absurd.
Everyone has purity tests, everyone has red lines. None are more reasonable than genocide.
She said it was a humanitarian catastrophe from day one of the invasion and called for an immediate ceasefire soon after. Just because she didn't use the exact word you want, a hugely legally binding and implicating one too mind you, you're willing to write her off?
You do realize that if that is your standard then literally no member of congress or in the executive is good enough for you, right?
Not to mention that it'd be hugely irresponsible for any government official to make a comment like that before the ICC ruling is actually finished.
You think it's irresponsible to call this a genocide before the ICC comes to a verdict in 20 years?
The Communist Party is a fed honeypot
Lmfao, yeah how long has that been the case? Since they realized I was right and switched to endorsing leftist dems and protesting?
converting the Democrats into a Socialist party would literally be easier.
They're a private organization...
They'll keep doing whatever they want without changing as long as people keep voting for him.
The only thing the DNC has that a different private party wouldn't is momentum.
If they just gonna keep following the rnc, we have no choice but acknowledging we were abandoned long ago already
The DNC is a national political party organization. Every four years the entire party is reorganized from the ground up. It's actually a pretty well created organizational system, the only people who really bitch about it are they keyboard warriors who have no understanding of it or the crazies who cannot fathom why they need other people to agree with them.
The DNC is a national political party organization
Nope, it's a private for-profit corporation masquerading as a political party.
That's how they're legally registered and that's how they were able to argue in court that they can rig the primaries or even just directly appointment nominees if they want to
Every four years the entire party is reorganized from the ground up
How adorably naive you are! 🥹
Biden and the rest of the leadership are part of a clique who took over the party in 1992 and never let go. Maybe some of the names and faces change, but the governing and campaign philosophies haven't changed since then and won't no matter how much the people they're supposed to represent do.
It's actually a pretty well created organizational system well-orchestrated political and financial machine
Fixed it for you
the only people who really bitch about it are they keyboard warriors who have no understanding of it people who understand how it ACTUALLY works and would prefer a more open, honest and representative party
the crazies who cannot fathom why they need other people to agree with them.
Yeah, because the Democratic Party operates based on pure consensus of the voters and never act against the will of the people for profit or to maintain the status quo.. 🙄
Are you being paid or are you gaslighting for free?
Reorganized from the ground up... to be exactly the same. They're not left.
Pelosi doesn't pick who can enter or who wins a primary, none of the Democratic leadership does. That's the donor class at best, but even they can get steamrolled over as the left should've learned with AOC and Crowley.
It’s so pathetic how you all try to convince us that the Dems are a fairly run grassroots organization when we all know that’s complete bullshit. The second there’s a real threat to the party leadership they can and will change the rules with zero options for recourse through the courts. They’ve done it multiple times before and they will do it again.
At this point I have to assume you have malicious intent towards leftist voters because this is just blatant gaslighting.
The Democratic Party and the DNC and all the affiliates are nothing more than tools for whatever vaguely left of american center interest group wants to use them.
There's no massive conspiracy to keep the Democrats Neoliberal, and if there is anything even similar to that, it's happening behind closed doors in Wall Street, not Washington.
They'll keep doing whatever they want without changing as long as people keep voting for him.
How long have you been involved in politics? I dont mean for that to sound demeaning. We've gone from Neoliberal democrats and Clinton gutting social welfare in the 90s to Socialists being integrated into the broader coalition, both parties have changed and will continue to change immensely over time. Ignoring that because you're upset about Bernie losing the primary in 2016 and 2020 and disconnecting completely from the party is just a ticket to irrelevance, and I say that as someone who worked on some of Bernie's first barnstorm events and both presidential campaigns.
It's funny the way this thread went. I don't think people paid attention to how much the Democratic party changed after 2016 after the Bernie peeps found out about how the party is actually structured. But there ended up being 3 types of new grassroots activists.
The ones that quickly found out that the DNC isn't some authoritarian regime who instead pulled up their seat at the table and effected change.
The ones that quickly found out that the DNC isn't some authoritarian regime and who wouldn't compromise with anyone and quickly became irrelevant but still cried that the system was still rigged (while their compatriots looked on in disgust lamenting the extra power to affect change they would have if they would vote as a block).
Those who got in and then tried to pull the ladder up to prevent themselves from losing their position the same way they accused others of doing.
Completely agree, I really don't know why these people think the DNC is some massive evil force trying to crush the grassroots leftie activism.
I'm pasting this from one of my earlier comments, but I feel like it's incredibly relevant.
If you don't like the policies of the moderate Democrats then volunteer for your local party, most of the people running your county party are old as fuck, that's one of the main problems with the Dems. Vote in every single primary for the most progressive option. Donate to and volunteer for your progressive state representatives/senators. Help your coworkers organize a union and increase your lobbying power. Join a progressive/socialist election work group like Progressive Victory or any of the countless others. If you aren't doing at least one of these regularly, then you have no right to complain that the party isn't listening to you. You've given them no reason to.
I deeply feel that none of the people in this thread commenting about the malevolent DNC have done these, and kept doing them since the Bernie campaigns.
I love how democrats just throw out the word “conspiracy” whenever they’re trying to make rational ideas sound crazy.
There is no “conspiracy” to keep the dnc neoliberal. They do it right out in the fucking open and they couldn’t be more clear about it.
The current Dem leader in the house is an actual public school buster with direct ties to private school corporations yet we still have blatant shills like you trying to gaslight us into believing that the democrats aren’t intentionally pro-corporate neoliberals. That’s fucking hilarious.
There is no “conspiracy” to keep the dnc neoliberal. They do it right out in the fucking open and they couldn’t be more clear about it.
That would still be a conspiracy, I never said it was a conspiracy theory. But if having Caucus leadership of a certain ideology makes the entire party that ideology, let's look at the largest democratic caucus and who leads it
Well look at that, it's the largest caucus of the Democratic Party and its literally lead by a socialist. The entire democratic party must be socialist /s.
We are definitely trying to fight with capitalists over who "owns" the party right now, but walking away from the fight now and trying the same thing the CPUSA and SPA have been trying for a century would be stupid.
Nope, party flips have happened before and they will happen again. You sound extremely condescending for someone who doesn’t know nearly as much they think they do.
The Democratic Party is run by deeply monied interests. You well never succeed in “converting” it to socialism. and no, getting a handful of candidates like AOC elected over the course of a few decades doesn’t show that you can. It actually proves the opposite point.
Today’s Democratic Party is more conservative than ever so all of you claiming we can convert are either incredibly naive, or deliberately trying to sabotage leftist movements.
The Democratic Party is run by deeply monied interests.
You ever seen proof for this or did you just hear it and it sounded right?
Today’s Democratic Party is more conservative than ever so all of you claiming we can convert are either incredibly naive, or deliberately trying to sabotage leftist movements.
Lmfao the Democratic Party used to be the part of Slavery and Segregation, and then what do you know, one of those party flips you literally mentioned happened and they became the ones spearheading the fight for civil rights in Congress. I see no reason the same can't happen around capitalism.
And now they are the party of genocide. Hey! Maybe you're right!
Sure you can say that, but half the party supports a ceasefire, the entire republican party would glass gaza from orbit given a chance.
Today’s Democratic Party is more conservative than ever
Biden just called Trans people part of the fabric of our nation rofl what the fuck are you on about
Inb4 "well that doesn't count" lol
We should all know by now that that's not how it's going to have to work. The way to change politics in a country isn't from the outside. It's not even from the inside really, it's by getting inside and then tearing out all the support beams of fixtures and rebuilding it from the inside out. That's what conservatives under the Republican party for the last 15 to 20 years. They completely took over the party ousted all the ones that were too moderate for them, they rebuilt their party from the inside to be what it is today. Leftists are going to have to have the discipline to do the same.
I love how democrats scream about a few thousand votes every election. Why is it that democrats cut it so close with a fascist, racist, sexist, dogshit party every election? The democrats should consider that they're doing a shit job and should work to improve themselves instead of shrieking "but other guy!!!" every single election and claiming that everything cost them the election except for themselves. If they lose the election they smugly say "look how right we are with how bad things are!" and if they win the election they smugly say "we won so we must be doing something right, let's keep the shitty status quo going!"
Uhh huh. You seriously think any of the voters that we lose to RFK Jr or West care at all about things like policy or actions of democrats in office? Reality has no place in that discussion. Unless democrats start going for the fringe conspiracy nutter vote, those votes are a lost cause
I would love it if that were the view that most Democrats had - then I could vote for the people I like in peace. Unfortunately, every day we get a new "vote blue no matter the genocide" post trying to shame people into voting for Biden. I pray to one day be a lost cause who isn't worth being yelled at (the earlier the better).
It's always a group that is simultaneously
big enough to ruin the election for the democratic candidate
too small to make it worth pursuing their votes
Which is a bit ironic considering this was a tactic invented by facists.
Anything to place the blame on a small outside group and away from the main inside group who holds power and responsibility over their current predicament.
I don't see how those statements are contradicting each other within the context of US presidential elections.
If they are big enough to ruin re-election chances then they are by definition big enough to make pursuing their votes worthwhile (because without them you will loose)
If you want a system where you can disregard that reality then you need a different electoral process. An easy way to mitigate that risk is to eliminate 3rd party candidates and make voting mandatory (or pressure 3rd parties to drop out and guilt non-voters into voting, as it were), but an astute observer might notice that looks an awful lot like something called a 'sham democracy'.
So just state outright that your intention is to hand the election to Trump.
Lol no, but as long as you're asking what I want: I want a system that can provide actual choices, rather than force a choice nobody wants.
But as long as that's not realistic, I want the choice that's blaming me for the destruction of my country to address my concerns in exchange for me choosing them.
What is definitely NOT what I want is to be blamed for my country's destruction AND have my concerns be ignored. That doesn't seem like a good system to me.
Lol no, but as long as you’re asking what I want: I want a system that can provide actual choices, rather than force a choice nobody wants.
Well voting third party, even if that party managed to succeed, will not accomplish what you claim to want.
We've had third parties that were successful in the past, guess what happened to the old party? It was displaced and became electorally irrelevant and then we were back to two parties again.
I was very clearly not describing our current system
So how does voting for third party do anything to further any change to the current system toward one you're talking about?
This really isn't that complicated. The country doesn't run a two-party system because of arbitrary or conspiratorial reasons, it runs one because the system's structure produces two parties.
Are we having two different conversations? Did you read what I wrote?
I'm not advocating voting third party, nor am I rationalizing a two party system as some type of conspiracy.
I was simply stating a desire for a system that actually produces real choices instead of the one we currently have that forces a choice nobody wants. How we get to that is another discussion, but frankly, we can't have that discussion when one party is panicking about loosing voters who are dissatisfied with the choices on offer because (i'm looking at you here) every statement of dissatisfaction is interpreted as subterfuge.
Last I checked, I'm not Biden and so I'm not panicking about "loosing" voters.
I learned for the final time in 2016 that the voters in this country are determined to take it to the brink of disaster every 4-8 years no matter what absurdity is carried into the office by the R behind his name.
I just genuinely don't understand the positions of third party voters nor their apologists (I'm looking at you here).
Yes, there is the whole conspiracy theory thing, but I don't think entire groups of people should be completely written off as crazy since people's justifications and motivations aren't so straightforward. I often see democrats claiming that we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to faults with their favored candidate, but this luxury isn't afforded to other candidates. If support for genocide can be overlooked, I'm sure far lesser things can be as well (though RFK Jr is the same on support for Israel/genocide as Biden).
I thought that was Jr's goal? He seems to be chumming up with right wing conspiracies pretty well.
how is that going to draw in people who would have otherwise voted for the boring mainstream democratic candidate?
He seems to specifically be gunning for the demographic of both right and left wing people that support pseudoscience nonsense. All the anti-vaxxers, for example. It's certainly entirely possible he'd steal more voters from Trump than from Biden.
It's certainly entirely possible he'd steal more voters from Trump than from Biden.
Fixed it for you.
The only person who I've heard be in love with RFK Jr. was a former Trump voter.
American electorate: "Fuck this two party system that prevents real choice on real issues."
Also American electorate: "Damn that third party candidate spoiling things for my side!"
The two party system is not solved by having a third party run. It's the nature of the fptp voting system that it will tend towards two parties. All having a third party run will do is reinforce the idea that you have to pick the lesser of two evils.
The solution to the two party system is to work from the ground up to get the voting system changed. So despite your attempt to shit on Americans, you're the one wrong here.
Pretty much. Someone told me here yesterday that I'd be "voting against democracy" if I didn't vote for Biden. That doesn't sound like a statement from someone who supports democracy.
That's a very silly thing for you to say when the other guy attempted to overthrow the US government in an insurrection. Yeah, fuck Biden and all, but at least he ain't a self proclaimed dictator who actually wants to be rid of democracy you silly lil billy.
Trump is a blustering idiot so I don't know why people believe his word on this statement over any other. He can call himself whatever he wants but that doesn't give him full control over the federal government.
You might want to ask yourself why the Democratic presidential candidates are continually neck and neck with facist dictators every election and also question why they haven't done anything during that time to improve their chances of winning.
It's not democracy if you're continually being forced to vote for someone who doesn't represent the people over and over again with no end in sight.
Trump is a blustering idiot, but he's also a criminal facing bankruptcy and prison time. Even if we were to disregard every terrible thing he did in office, (and we'd be incredibly stupid to do so) we'd surely be fools to ignore his repeatedly stated intentions to wield dictatorial power and imprison his political enemies.
Extrapolating a bit from your comment: I, too, would like to have a national left-wing party to support in this country. It ain't the Democrats, and likely never will be. We'll need to reform the electoral system to make room for such a party. In this year's presidential election, that's not on the ballot, and no amount of self-righteous rhetoric will alter that.
It's a binary choice.
He also RAPED CHILDREN.
Just throwing that out there.
Edit: sorry, sorry. I should clarify, he only visited Jeffrey Epsteins island and openly admitted that he would absolutely have sex with his own daughter.
Even as a bumbling idiot, he came dangerously close to creating a constitution crisis that he could have used to retain political power. Just a few key people had been swapped out with some loyalists and it could have easily become the case. A congress recognized this, which is why they acted so quickly in a bipartisan way after the election to put into law that the VP can't just pick whatever electors they want. Now he knows more and can demand more loyalty, so it is very brave of you to assume that this is some non-real risk. The system held, but it did show that it's not invincible.
It’s not democracy if you’re continually being forced to vote for someone who doesn’t represent the people over and over again with no end in sight.
The problem is, as I said in another post, that the solution to this problem is a ground up approach. Voting for a third party, even if that third party wins, solves nothing as it would just tend right back to a two party system again. It's the nature of the FPTP voting system. This needs to start at the bottom where you get people who will change local elections first, and then work up.
Voting for a third party, even if that third party wins, solves nothing as it would just tend right back to a two party system again.
This is absolutely right. We had third parties in our country's short history, and some were successful. You know what happened to the old party? It's gone now, so electing a "new" third party creates a "new" two-party system...that's it...not some wild explosion of choice. At the end the result is the same and there are still two parties.
Yup. People using their vote strategically in the system available to them, when they want a different system, is not evidence of them being dumb or acting irrationally. Getting a third party elected is such a long shot in this system, and ultimately pointless in the long run, is far more irrational than that.
And don't get me wrong, I think our system is messed up. But I'm working locally to solve that issue. As should everyone else upset about this. But they would rather sit online and whine then go out and actually enact change where they have the most influence.
Yeah keep blaming everything except the fact that Biden has assumed dig shit policies since last summer.
And getting Trump back in the WH is the answer to that?
You know this straw-man you've committed to is losing us the election, don't you?
Look at the polling, look at the primaries. Biden has to do better on his own merit. Trump being bad is Trumps issue, not something that will get Biden elected.
This insistence from the neo-liberal wing of the Democratic party that this is how to run a campaign has basically handed the election to Trump. Stop it. Stop giving the election away. Do better.
What makes you think Biden has done nothing? What do you want him to do better in a divided government?
RFK Jr. can't win. But he and Cornel West could make Biden lose the White House.
If Biden loses it will be because of Biden and his 4 years of doing absolutely nothing and not getting anything he promised In to law. Also the genocide. As shitty as it sounds people can overlook the genocide if Biden was actually improving people's lives but they are only getting worse under his presidency.
Biden is an average to above average president.
It's mostly republican lawmakers passing shitty laws in republican states that makes live for many American worse. DeSantis is the one fucking up Florida. Gregg Abott and Ted Cruz are fucking up Texas. Biden has very little influence on that.
And Biden is fighting the terrible decisions from the previous Trump administration. Were many shitty things are only now starting to show their full efect. Like the increase in higher income tax for lower brackets. Or deregulating coal mining operations that were in place to protect rivers, or defunding the women's health budget. Most of these things take time for the average person to feel the impact. And Biden is actively trying to reverse some of them. He recently signed a new bill that gurantees funding for women's health research. Biden rejoined the Paris agreement (which Trump left), with the goal of reducing emissions and combating climate change. And a lot more. But just as with the negative efects taking time to be felt, so does reversing them.
Biden for some reason just isn't liked by many Americans. It has little to do with his policies or (in)actions as a president. People like to bring up the geonicde for why they don't like him. But many of the same people have been critizing him before the situation in Israel even started.
No they can't
Nader 2000, anyone?
RFK is way more appealing to the maga crowd than mainstream or progressive Dems.
How about Cornell West?
Who? I've literally never heard of this person prior to now. And I'd like to think I stay fairly up-to-date on US politics.
So yeah, I'm going to go with probably not.
He’s pretty well known among the folks that are big on social justice and environmental issues. I would argue that he’s the biggest name to be on the Green ticket since Nader.
And he doesn’t have to be know by everyone to fuck over Biden. This is going to be a close race. Spoiling a race means that it could come down to a few more votes than normal for the Greens.
Edit: he’s running as an independent now.
The best way to discredit him is with his stance on Ukraine.
He's going the with "NATO forced them to" talking point, and he's against additional funding for Ukraine. I don't think many people truly on the left will pick him over Biden. Let's hope not, at least.
To be fair, he's against the US providing international military aid and funding across the board, not just Ukraine.
he never said NATO forced them he said it's illegal.
"NATO is an expanding instrument of U.S. global power that provoked Russia into a criminal invasion and occupation of Ukraine,"
He said NATO provoked Russia into it, in effect blaming NATO for Russia's actions and saying "look what NATO made Russia do".
he called it criminal
It's criminal and imperialist. Russia was mad that their former colony wanted to have closer relations to the West and join NATO. So, they invaded and seized Crimea.
When that wasn't enough, and shockingly didn't make Ukraine want to get closer to Russia, Russia invaded the rest of Ukraine.
West does not seem to understand that NATO is a voluntary organization that requires applications to get in, nor that the core of this war is Russia trying to exercise imperialism.
So, it begs the question, why doesn't West want the US to aid a country in protecting its sovereignty against an imperialist power? If he's ideologically consistent, that means he wouldn't want to help Palestinians obtain freedom from Israel either.
West does not seem to understand that NATO is a voluntary organization that requires applications to get in, nor that the core of this war is Russia trying to exercise imperialism.
what makes you think that?
why doesn’t West want the US to aid a country in protecting its sovereignty against an imperialist powe
he never said that
West isn't green
TIL he left the Green Party a few months ago. He was green until last fall.
Appeals to no one anymore
nader didn't put bush in the whitehouse
Definitely debatable. Nader had 97k votes in Florida, and Gore needed about 500.
There are a number of variables that arguably screwed Gore. The ballot format, the chads, the court, the completion from the left, etc. Many argue that removing any one of those variables could’ve likely tipped things for Gore.
Gore won florida
The point is that you’re more vulnerable to shenanigans with a tight margin.
let's put blame for Bush's presidency on bush
Going to back to the point of this thread. Someone like West is not going to win. Vote for him if you want, but if you’re in a state that is going to be tight, voting for him will make it easier for the far right candidate to get certified.
the Democrats and Republicans are both running far right candidates.
One of those candidates is literally running on overturning democratic elections, giving even more money and free rein to private industry, and having his family in appointmented positions.
The false equivalency stuff needs to end.
verturning democratic elections, giving even more money and free rein to private industry, and having his family in appointmented positions.
that's not what far right means, and there is no false equivalency being made
What is it to you? Increased authoritarianism and privatization are cornerstones of most popular definitions of right wing politics.
Also Roger Stone and the rest of the Brooks Brothers Riot ratfuckers for delaying and disrupting the recount enough to give SCOTUS cover for their ridiculous decision to weigh in at all.
Same song and dance from the 2 party machine. The way the political system is. This isnt democracy and I'd rather see trump elected purely so he can implode the system. And it'd be entirely the democrats own fault for falling into complete corruption and ineffectuality. Biden is bank rolling and arming a genocide, hes been nothing but a puppet president his entire term and the democratic party has become a corrupt oligarchy just the same as the republicans. This 2 party system is given power only by the willing consent and active participation of the american people. And I think its time that the american people said enough is enough and abolished the two existing political parties completely so that we can form a functional democracy instead of this corporate klepto clown show.
RFK isnt a perfect candidate but hes the best political candidate iv seen run for officeoin my lifetime.
Trump might implode the current system, but a functional democracy won't replace it. It would become a one party system in the style of Russia, trump has been clear enough about that.
Oh no if only Biden could adopt left wing policies and stop doing Genocide then he could get those voters!
No wait they are obliged to vote for God Emperor Biden! The Genocide must flow!!
Somone call 911 his brain is dead!
Or go with West who supports the genocide in Ukraine. Either way we get to have a genocider!
west does not support genocide anywhere
Neither does Biden
biden is literally shipping weapons and cash to a genocide.
And West refuses to support Ukraine's defense against a genocide.
He almost never criticizes Putin's genocidal acts in Ukraine... just NATO... and repeats Putins talking points about giving up and giving Putin larger parts is their sovereign country( a "peacec treaty"). It's as though he has no clue that Putin would just attack again exactly like after Crimea.
in your own link, he calls putin a gangster.
he never said give up or rgive putin any part of ukraine. he called the invasion illegal. and the united states is IN nato, so the president (which he is running to be) would actually have influence over nato policy.
Biden has criticized Israel and called for a cease fire. Yet he is supporting genocide? while West would refuse to help Ukraine shoot back giving Putin free reign to take a much as they want and steal s many children as they can and this isn't supporting genocide? Why not criticize both Biden and West? They both deserve it.
He called for an end to the war and a treaty which can only mean compromising and giving part of Ukraine to Russia.
you don't see any way the war can end without giving part of ukraine to russia?
Not if it's a "compromise"... of course not. How could it end with a treaty without giving part of Ukraine(which Russia has legally annexed according to them) to Russia? They are no longer getting support to shoot back or even defend themselves so Russia has free reign to keep moving the line further and further... stealing and killing more and more children. Their goal is to erase the Ukrainian culture and to Russify the whole area.
Or De La Cruz or Jill Stein. You Blue MAGAs are always pretending to forget that there are 6 candidates in play right now
Look up Stein's views of Russia. She blames NATO for Russia's Invasion. Virtually never criticizes Putin. She says "why bother? " Stating that Ukraine used to belong to Russia. So she has no real issue with Russia erasing the Ukrainian identity and culture(genocide). She is a monster.
this is a mischaracterization
How?
she did say "why bother" but it wasn't in a statement about ukraine formerly belonging to russia. it was in the context of showing that everyone knows putin is a bad guy. she has never said she has no issue with russia erasing ukrainian identity, but she has called the invasion illegal. and she did say that nato's saber rattling provoked it, but she still condemns the invasion.
And Biden had criticized Israel's Gaza response.
but then continued to enable them
Just as Stein refuses to support Ukraine, enabling Putin.
she said the invasion is illegal.
Who cares what she says if what she would DO is not support Ukraine. Biden criticizes Israel but who cares if weapons are still supplied. Words are cheap.
If anything, RFK will split the Republican (Russian) vote
This author is a dipshit
I don't know this author, but when I see articles like this I always think it's a reverse Hanlon's razor. I refuse to believe the people reporting on it are stupid and assume they're fucking evil.
I said this in another post, but i believe older democrats who dont keep up with the nonsense of politics could very well just see the name Kennedy and vote for him. If we werent in a very red state i would be worried about my grandfather in his 80s doing exactly that.
That isn’t what polling shows.
Polls dont show anything good. They're a pr stunt at best.
Whereas your non-polling-evidence-based feeling is legit.
RFK Jr. is a piece of dog shit drying in the hot summer sun. I can't imagine in any universe this guy (who makes me wish there was a Sirhan Sirhan Jr.) draining votes from Joe Biden when their views are diametrically opposed.
Really, really low-information voters might see the last name and think he's like JFK.
A shocking amount of Republican antics suddenly made sense to me when I realized they're just targeting low-information voters.
When was that, when Trump said "I love the poorly educated"?
His little off-script comments are always interesting to me, because they give insight to what he's thinking.
We all already knew that stuff though. It’s not like when he says this shit out loud it’s something we didn’t already deduce quite easily.
That's most of his base.
RFK is the wish.com JFK.
I support Kennedy. RFK’s sister, who said she’ll vote for Biden over her own brother. lol
They run this same story about third party candidates every election year. The problem is they never show that the people who voted for the third party candidate would've definitely gone to one party or the other. People know what's at stake, why do you assume people voting for RFK Jr would've voted for Biden? There's nothing about his platform that is very left leaning. The most left leaning thing about him is his last name.
Edit: Just as an example, I voted for Nader in 2000. I'm someone who would've voted for Gore otherwise. But guess what? I was voting in a state that wasn't in close contention at all, so I could vote for a third party without really changing the calculus of who would get elected. The idea that votes for third parties are fungible with votes for major party candidates is just not accurate.
Because it's true every time, and it works a lot. Gore would have won if Nader wasn't on the ticket, and guess what? The Republicans have been propping up third-party candidates for years.
Hell, in Florida they got some random dude on the ticket just because he had the same name as the Democrat -- and it worked.
Intuitively it doesn't even make sense in this case though. Biden is running as the safe ordinary establishment candidate. Trump and RFK Jr are going for the right wing wacko conspiracy theory crowd.
Unless I see data to the contrary, I'm going to assume that RFK Jr siphons more votes from Trump.
I know several people that have fallen for his bullshit who voted for Biden last time.
Well, there were a certain number of disaffected Sanders primary voters that switched to Trump when Clinton "won" the primary in 2016. It's hard to believe, given how diametrically opposed Sanders and Trump are, but there it is. Why would they go from a moderate candidate to a far right one? I don't know, and it's really hard to pin down in the data.
That's kind of the problem we have now. Why would someone that was a Biden supporter flip to RFK, when RFK is very clearly significantly to the right, and way off in crazy-land compared to Biden? I don't know. But given how likely Trump supporters are to show up, Biden really can't afford to lose too many to RFK. Or West, for that matter, who is closer to what I'd prefer politically.
I feel compelled to point out—because a certain subset of people continue to blame progressives for Trump's 2016 win—that in the 2008 election, 25% of Clinton's primary supporters voted McCain in the general.*
*See table on page 9
Except they're talking about Vermont, where there are open primaries, meaning they could have been Republicans trying to spoil the democratic nomination. I find that far more believable than a Bernie bro voting for Trump.
I don't. I was--am--a Sanders supporter, and I'm still pissed that twice the Democratic party has done everything it could to sink Sanders. I voted for Stein in 2016--in a state that easily went blue--because I honestly didn't think Trump could be as awful as he was. I figured he'd be run-of-the-mill Republican, rather than trying to go straight fascist. I figured, correctly that my vote would make very little difference in a state that is as reliably blue, albeit NIMBY, as it is.
I was, of course, entirely wrong about how awful Trump could be, and was.
In 2020 I voted for Biden, although I'm still pissed that yet again the DNC threw all their weight behind him, instead of the more principled candidate.
And I'll vote for him again, because any other vote is going to be hurting people that I care about. Even though Cornell West has, IMO, better principles than Biden, voting for West in a state that only went blue because the 'vote was rigged' last time would not be a good idea if I don't want to support a decent into fascism.
Why don't you believe it that it's more about the open primary in this one state than Bernie voters voting for Trump?
You voted for Bernie and still voted for Clinton after all the bullshit that happened within the party and so did I. I would need to see equivalent data from a closed primary state to even begin to believe in this possibility. From their side, it'd be the equivalent of one of us voting for Trump in an open primary back in 2016 when nobody thought he'd win the general in order to spoil the Republican race for the general election.
No, I voted for Stein. I said that; literally the second sentence there. The state I lived in at the time went strongly for Clinton.
Okay well I added that as an edit and wasn't able to reread your comment while writing it. Either way the point still stands that you didn't jump to Trump after Bernie lost the primary and I don't believe this analysis as it was done in a single state with an open primary. Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is the most likely and Republicans trying to spoil the Democratic ticket makes a lot more sense than Bernie bros voting for Trump.
Pollsters do ask "if the election was held today, between X and Y, who would you vote for", for multiple combinations of candidates, so you can infer some of those opinions. I don't think they explicitly ask people to rank their choices, or at least I haven't seen those polls.
I believe the latest polls show Bobby Kennedy Jr. taking slightly more support from Trump. It makes sense. In order to support Kennedy, you have to listen to him first.
The conspiracy theorist label stops the left from even considering him. The voters who are more likely to give him a chance are on the right. They don’t care if he’s called a conspiracy theorist.
I think it's a mix that varies state from state based off the latest polling.
Could be, but it’s likely to tend toward Trump voters as time goes on. They’re less resistant to someone being unpopular in the mainstream media.
Being called crazy by the media is a prerequisite for right wing viewers to trust a candidate.
now that he's made a decision, it really just takes one look at who his running mate is that would cause any Leftist to walk away.
Idk he really appeals to my desire to have a stupider, less popular trump. And he's a Kennedy!
/s, because this is the internet
Vote Blue No Matter Who! /s
The problem is the people running the DNC
At some point, we're going to have to make an actual left wing party. Because the only thing the national DNC cares about is money
They don't even know how to spend it effectively when they get it.
Socialist Party of America, Socialist Alternative, The Communist Party of the USA, and plenty others have been trying to run left of the Democratic Party for a century, it won't work in a FPTP voting system, converting the Democrats into a Socialist party would literally be easier.
If you want a left wing party other than the Dems, you're gonna have to change FPTP first.
Or or, and hear me out here. We could do what has happened many different times throughout history. And take over/replace the structure of a party. The Democrats already ignore state and local elections across several red states. What if we lefties/socialist/etc instead of trying to prop up separate parties and separate candidates that always fail. Fielded our own candidates who more closely match our own ideals. And run them as Democrats in these areas. Focusing on funding them ourselves as well as whatever money the DNC apparatus might provide. We might actually start winning. And if we start winning we might actually be able to replace those in the DNC. And if we replace those in the DNC. Things might actually get better.
Isn't that what they said?
Yeah it was, but they added more context on how it was possible, so I wouldn't really say it was redundant.
This is what the DSA has been trying to do and succeeding in for 30 years with candidates like AOC
Succeeding? They’ve elected a tiny handful of candidates over the last thirty years so now that’s success? Lol, sounds like something a right wing Democrat would say, because that’s a very convenient result for the party itself. You’re either blindly loyal to this party or you must think we’re stupid.
Almost all of which were elected in the past decade, that's rather quick for a political change as large as that. And more are being elected every year.
The DSA literally helped Bernie almost win the presidential primary, that wouldn't of even come close to happening if the average Democrat was some right wing anti-socialist hawk.
They propped up a Zionist who is now campaigning for Genocide Joe
When the military is deployed to crush protestors and trans people have their existence banned by Trump I'll know who to thank.
Kinda weird yall insist on calling him Genocide Joe.
I don't care what nonsense falls out of his demented mouth as long as he is sending bombs to an ongoing genocide
Do you really and honestly believe that Joe Biden Is so evil that he's been sitting there relishing in the deaths of civilians for months?
And you do realize that sending weapons is not the sole discretion of the president? About 75% if congress keeps voting to send those weapons.
I could care less what he feels as he snuffs out the lives of children in Gaza.
Yes, it's absolutely in his discretion, and the lies his State Department are telling to continue doing so are outrageous and absurd.
Wait-5-moths-before-calling-a-genocide-a-genocide AOC?
What do you think that purity testing gets you?
Everyone has purity tests, everyone has red lines. None are more reasonable than genocide.
She said it was a humanitarian catastrophe from day one of the invasion and called for an immediate ceasefire soon after. Just because she didn't use the exact word you want, a hugely legally binding and implicating one too mind you, you're willing to write her off?
You do realize that if that is your standard then literally no member of congress or in the executive is good enough for you, right?
Not to mention that it'd be hugely irresponsible for any government official to make a comment like that before the ICC ruling is actually finished.
You think it's irresponsible to call this a genocide before the ICC comes to a verdict in 20 years?
The Communist Party is a fed honeypot
Lmfao, yeah how long has that been the case? Since they realized I was right and switched to endorsing leftist dems and protesting?
They're a private organization...
They'll keep doing whatever they want without changing as long as people keep voting for him.
The only thing the DNC has that a different private party wouldn't is momentum.
If they just gonna keep following the rnc, we have no choice but acknowledging we were abandoned long ago already
The DNC is a national political party organization. Every four years the entire party is reorganized from the ground up. It's actually a pretty well created organizational system, the only people who really bitch about it are they keyboard warriors who have no understanding of it or the crazies who cannot fathom why they need other people to agree with them.
Nope, it's a private for-profit corporation masquerading as a political party.
That's how they're legally registered and that's how they were able to argue in court that they can rig the primaries or even just directly appointment nominees if they want to
How adorably naive you are! 🥹
Biden and the rest of the leadership are part of a clique who took over the party in 1992 and never let go. Maybe some of the names and faces change, but the governing and campaign philosophies haven't changed since then and won't no matter how much the people they're supposed to represent do.
Fixed it for you
Yeah, because the Democratic Party operates based on pure consensus of the voters and never act against the will of the people for profit or to maintain the status quo.. 🙄
Are you being paid or are you gaslighting for free?
Reorganized from the ground up... to be exactly the same. They're not left.
This is Pelosi telling progressives and the left to F off... https://youtu.be/MR65ZhO6LGA
Pelosi doesn't pick who can enter or who wins a primary, none of the Democratic leadership does. That's the donor class at best, but even they can get steamrolled over as the left should've learned with AOC and Crowley.
It’s so pathetic how you all try to convince us that the Dems are a fairly run grassroots organization when we all know that’s complete bullshit. The second there’s a real threat to the party leadership they can and will change the rules with zero options for recourse through the courts. They’ve done it multiple times before and they will do it again.
At this point I have to assume you have malicious intent towards leftist voters because this is just blatant gaslighting.
The Democratic Party and the DNC and all the affiliates are nothing more than tools for whatever vaguely left of american center interest group wants to use them.
There's no massive conspiracy to keep the Democrats Neoliberal, and if there is anything even similar to that, it's happening behind closed doors in Wall Street, not Washington.
How long have you been involved in politics? I dont mean for that to sound demeaning. We've gone from Neoliberal democrats and Clinton gutting social welfare in the 90s to Socialists being integrated into the broader coalition, both parties have changed and will continue to change immensely over time. Ignoring that because you're upset about Bernie losing the primary in 2016 and 2020 and disconnecting completely from the party is just a ticket to irrelevance, and I say that as someone who worked on some of Bernie's first barnstorm events and both presidential campaigns.
It's funny the way this thread went. I don't think people paid attention to how much the Democratic party changed after 2016 after the Bernie peeps found out about how the party is actually structured. But there ended up being 3 types of new grassroots activists.
Completely agree, I really don't know why these people think the DNC is some massive evil force trying to crush the grassroots leftie activism.
I'm pasting this from one of my earlier comments, but I feel like it's incredibly relevant.
I deeply feel that none of the people in this thread commenting about the malevolent DNC have done these, and kept doing them since the Bernie campaigns.
I love how democrats just throw out the word “conspiracy” whenever they’re trying to make rational ideas sound crazy.
There is no “conspiracy” to keep the dnc neoliberal. They do it right out in the fucking open and they couldn’t be more clear about it.
The current Dem leader in the house is an actual public school buster with direct ties to private school corporations yet we still have blatant shills like you trying to gaslight us into believing that the democrats aren’t intentionally pro-corporate neoliberals. That’s fucking hilarious.
That would still be a conspiracy, I never said it was a conspiracy theory. But if having Caucus leadership of a certain ideology makes the entire party that ideology, let's look at the largest democratic caucus and who leads it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus
Well look at that, it's the largest caucus of the Democratic Party and its literally lead by a socialist. The entire democratic party must be socialist /s.
We are definitely trying to fight with capitalists over who "owns" the party right now, but walking away from the fight now and trying the same thing the CPUSA and SPA have been trying for a century would be stupid.
Nope, party flips have happened before and they will happen again. You sound extremely condescending for someone who doesn’t know nearly as much they think they do.
The Democratic Party is run by deeply monied interests. You well never succeed in “converting” it to socialism. and no, getting a handful of candidates like AOC elected over the course of a few decades doesn’t show that you can. It actually proves the opposite point.
Today’s Democratic Party is more conservative than ever so all of you claiming we can convert are either incredibly naive, or deliberately trying to sabotage leftist movements.
You ever seen proof for this or did you just hear it and it sounded right?
Lmfao the Democratic Party used to be the part of Slavery and Segregation, and then what do you know, one of those party flips you literally mentioned happened and they became the ones spearheading the fight for civil rights in Congress. I see no reason the same can't happen around capitalism.
And now they are the party of genocide. Hey! Maybe you're right!
Sure you can say that, but half the party supports a ceasefire, the entire republican party would glass gaza from orbit given a chance.
Biden just called Trans people part of the fabric of our nation rofl what the fuck are you on about
Inb4 "well that doesn't count" lol
We should all know by now that that's not how it's going to have to work. The way to change politics in a country isn't from the outside. It's not even from the inside really, it's by getting inside and then tearing out all the support beams of fixtures and rebuilding it from the inside out. That's what conservatives under the Republican party for the last 15 to 20 years. They completely took over the party ousted all the ones that were too moderate for them, they rebuilt their party from the inside to be what it is today. Leftists are going to have to have the discipline to do the same.
And what about the people running the RNC?
I love how democrats scream about a few thousand votes every election. Why is it that democrats cut it so close with a fascist, racist, sexist, dogshit party every election? The democrats should consider that they're doing a shit job and should work to improve themselves instead of shrieking "but other guy!!!" every single election and claiming that everything cost them the election except for themselves. If they lose the election they smugly say "look how right we are with how bad things are!" and if they win the election they smugly say "we won so we must be doing something right, let's keep the shitty status quo going!"
Uhh huh. You seriously think any of the voters that we lose to RFK Jr or West care at all about things like policy or actions of democrats in office? Reality has no place in that discussion. Unless democrats start going for the fringe conspiracy nutter vote, those votes are a lost cause
I would love it if that were the view that most Democrats had - then I could vote for the people I like in peace. Unfortunately, every day we get a new "vote blue no matter the genocide" post trying to shame people into voting for Biden. I pray to one day be a lost cause who isn't worth being yelled at (the earlier the better).
It's always a group that is simultaneously
Which is a bit ironic considering this was a tactic invented by facists.
Anything to place the blame on a small outside group and away from the main inside group who holds power and responsibility over their current predicament.
I don't see how those statements are contradicting each other within the context of US presidential elections.
If they are big enough to ruin re-election chances then they are by definition big enough to make pursuing their votes worthwhile (because without them you will loose)
If you want a system where you can disregard that reality then you need a different electoral process. An easy way to mitigate that risk is to eliminate 3rd party candidates and make voting mandatory (or pressure 3rd parties to drop out and guilt non-voters into voting, as it were), but an astute observer might notice that looks an awful lot like something called a 'sham democracy'.
So just state outright that your intention is to hand the election to Trump.
Lol no, but as long as you're asking what I want: I want a system that can provide actual choices, rather than force a choice nobody wants.
But as long as that's not realistic, I want the choice that's blaming me for the destruction of my country to address my concerns in exchange for me choosing them.
What is definitely NOT what I want is to be blamed for my country's destruction AND have my concerns be ignored. That doesn't seem like a good system to me.
Well voting third party, even if that party managed to succeed, will not accomplish what you claim to want.
We've had third parties that were successful in the past, guess what happened to the old party? It was displaced and became electorally irrelevant and then we were back to two parties again.
I was very clearly not describing our current system
So how does voting for third party do anything to further any change to the current system toward one you're talking about?
This really isn't that complicated. The country doesn't run a two-party system because of arbitrary or conspiratorial reasons, it runs one because the system's structure produces two parties.
Are we having two different conversations? Did you read what I wrote?
I'm not advocating voting third party, nor am I rationalizing a two party system as some type of conspiracy.
I was simply stating a desire for a system that actually produces real choices instead of the one we currently have that forces a choice nobody wants. How we get to that is another discussion, but frankly, we can't have that discussion when one party is panicking about loosing voters who are dissatisfied with the choices on offer because (i'm looking at you here) every statement of dissatisfaction is interpreted as subterfuge.
Last I checked, I'm not Biden and so I'm not panicking about "loosing" voters.
I learned for the final time in 2016 that the voters in this country are determined to take it to the brink of disaster every 4-8 years no matter what absurdity is carried into the office by the R behind his name.
I just genuinely don't understand the positions of third party voters nor their apologists (I'm looking at you here).
I'm pretty sure everyone cares about their own well-being. I haven't been paying much attention to RFK Jr since he's a non-factor, but at a glance I can see why some would like his policies: https://www.usatoday.com/elections/voter-guide/2024-11-05/candidate/robert-f-kennedy
Yes, there is the whole conspiracy theory thing, but I don't think entire groups of people should be completely written off as crazy since people's justifications and motivations aren't so straightforward. I often see democrats claiming that we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good when it comes to faults with their favored candidate, but this luxury isn't afforded to other candidates. If support for genocide can be overlooked, I'm sure far lesser things can be as well (though RFK Jr is the same on support for Israel/genocide as Biden).
Shhh
Democrats are so used to sniffing their own farts that they don't realize how bad they smell.
I thought that was Jr's goal? He seems to be chumming up with right wing conspiracies pretty well.
how is that going to draw in people who would have otherwise voted for the boring mainstream democratic candidate?
He seems to specifically be gunning for the demographic of both right and left wing people that support pseudoscience nonsense. All the anti-vaxxers, for example. It's certainly entirely possible he'd steal more voters from Trump than from Biden.
Fixed it for you.
The only person who I've heard be in love with RFK Jr. was a former Trump voter.
American electorate: "Fuck this two party system that prevents real choice on real issues."
Also American electorate: "Damn that third party candidate spoiling things for my side!"
The two party system is not solved by having a third party run. It's the nature of the fptp voting system that it will tend towards two parties. All having a third party run will do is reinforce the idea that you have to pick the lesser of two evils.
The solution to the two party system is to work from the ground up to get the voting system changed. So despite your attempt to shit on Americans, you're the one wrong here.
Pretty much. Someone told me here yesterday that I'd be "voting against democracy" if I didn't vote for Biden. That doesn't sound like a statement from someone who supports democracy.
That's a very silly thing for you to say when the other guy attempted to overthrow the US government in an insurrection. Yeah, fuck Biden and all, but at least he ain't a self proclaimed dictator who actually wants to be rid of democracy you silly lil billy.
Trump is a blustering idiot so I don't know why people believe his word on this statement over any other. He can call himself whatever he wants but that doesn't give him full control over the federal government.
You might want to ask yourself why the Democratic presidential candidates are continually neck and neck with facist dictators every election and also question why they haven't done anything during that time to improve their chances of winning.
It's not democracy if you're continually being forced to vote for someone who doesn't represent the people over and over again with no end in sight.
Trump is a blustering idiot, but he's also a criminal facing bankruptcy and prison time. Even if we were to disregard every terrible thing he did in office, (and we'd be incredibly stupid to do so) we'd surely be fools to ignore his repeatedly stated intentions to wield dictatorial power and imprison his political enemies.
Extrapolating a bit from your comment: I, too, would like to have a national left-wing party to support in this country. It ain't the Democrats, and likely never will be. We'll need to reform the electoral system to make room for such a party. In this year's presidential election, that's not on the ballot, and no amount of self-righteous rhetoric will alter that.
It's a binary choice.
He also RAPED CHILDREN.
Just throwing that out there.
Edit: sorry, sorry. I should clarify, he only visited Jeffrey Epsteins island and openly admitted that he would absolutely have sex with his own daughter.
Even as a bumbling idiot, he came dangerously close to creating a constitution crisis that he could have used to retain political power. Just a few key people had been swapped out with some loyalists and it could have easily become the case. A congress recognized this, which is why they acted so quickly in a bipartisan way after the election to put into law that the VP can't just pick whatever electors they want. Now he knows more and can demand more loyalty, so it is very brave of you to assume that this is some non-real risk. The system held, but it did show that it's not invincible.
The problem is, as I said in another post, that the solution to this problem is a ground up approach. Voting for a third party, even if that third party wins, solves nothing as it would just tend right back to a two party system again. It's the nature of the FPTP voting system. This needs to start at the bottom where you get people who will change local elections first, and then work up.
This is absolutely right. We had third parties in our country's short history, and some were successful. You know what happened to the old party? It's gone now, so electing a "new" third party creates a "new" two-party system...that's it...not some wild explosion of choice. At the end the result is the same and there are still two parties.
Yup. People using their vote strategically in the system available to them, when they want a different system, is not evidence of them being dumb or acting irrationally. Getting a third party elected is such a long shot in this system, and ultimately pointless in the long run, is far more irrational than that.
And don't get me wrong, I think our system is messed up. But I'm working locally to solve that issue. As should everyone else upset about this. But they would rather sit online and whine then go out and actually enact change where they have the most influence.
RFK doesn't appeal to Democratics
That's the goal:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/08/politics/rfk-jr-new-york-biden-trump/index.html
Yeah keep blaming everything except the fact that Biden has assumed dig shit policies since last summer.
And getting Trump back in the WH is the answer to that?
You know this straw-man you've committed to is losing us the election, don't you?
Look at the polling, look at the primaries. Biden has to do better on his own merit. Trump being bad is Trumps issue, not something that will get Biden elected.
This insistence from the neo-liberal wing of the Democratic party that this is how to run a campaign has basically handed the election to Trump. Stop it. Stop giving the election away. Do better.
What makes you think Biden has done nothing? What do you want him to do better in a divided government?
I think he's done lots of great things.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/02/joe-biden-30-policy-things-you-might-have-missed-00139046
A better title would be:
RFK Jr. can't win. But he and Cornel West could make Biden lose the White House.
If Biden loses it will be because of Biden and his 4 years of doing absolutely nothing and not getting anything he promised In to law. Also the genocide. As shitty as it sounds people can overlook the genocide if Biden was actually improving people's lives but they are only getting worse under his presidency.
Biden is an average to above average president.
It's mostly republican lawmakers passing shitty laws in republican states that makes live for many American worse. DeSantis is the one fucking up Florida. Gregg Abott and Ted Cruz are fucking up Texas. Biden has very little influence on that.
And Biden is fighting the terrible decisions from the previous Trump administration. Were many shitty things are only now starting to show their full efect. Like the increase in higher income tax for lower brackets. Or deregulating coal mining operations that were in place to protect rivers, or defunding the women's health budget. Most of these things take time for the average person to feel the impact. And Biden is actively trying to reverse some of them. He recently signed a new bill that gurantees funding for women's health research. Biden rejoined the Paris agreement (which Trump left), with the goal of reducing emissions and combating climate change. And a lot more. But just as with the negative efects taking time to be felt, so does reversing them.
Biden for some reason just isn't liked by many Americans. It has little to do with his policies or (in)actions as a president. People like to bring up the geonicde for why they don't like him. But many of the same people have been critizing him before the situation in Israel even started.
No they can't
Nader 2000, anyone?
RFK is way more appealing to the maga crowd than mainstream or progressive Dems.
How about Cornell West?
Who? I've literally never heard of this person prior to now. And I'd like to think I stay fairly up-to-date on US politics.
So yeah, I'm going to go with probably not.
He’s pretty well known among the folks that are big on social justice and environmental issues. I would argue that he’s the biggest name to be on the Green ticket since Nader.
And he doesn’t have to be know by everyone to fuck over Biden. This is going to be a close race. Spoiling a race means that it could come down to a few more votes than normal for the Greens.
Edit: he’s running as an independent now.
The best way to discredit him is with his stance on Ukraine.
https://www.newsweek.com/cornel-west-blames-nato-russias-war-ukraine-1812320
He's going the with "NATO forced them to" talking point, and he's against additional funding for Ukraine. I don't think many people truly on the left will pick him over Biden. Let's hope not, at least.
To be fair, he's against the US providing international military aid and funding across the board, not just Ukraine.
he never said NATO forced them he said it's illegal.
"NATO is an expanding instrument of U.S. global power that provoked Russia into a criminal invasion and occupation of Ukraine,"
He said NATO provoked Russia into it, in effect blaming NATO for Russia's actions and saying "look what NATO made Russia do".
he called it criminal
It's criminal and imperialist. Russia was mad that their former colony wanted to have closer relations to the West and join NATO. So, they invaded and seized Crimea.
When that wasn't enough, and shockingly didn't make Ukraine want to get closer to Russia, Russia invaded the rest of Ukraine.
West does not seem to understand that NATO is a voluntary organization that requires applications to get in, nor that the core of this war is Russia trying to exercise imperialism.
So, it begs the question, why doesn't West want the US to aid a country in protecting its sovereignty against an imperialist power? If he's ideologically consistent, that means he wouldn't want to help Palestinians obtain freedom from Israel either.
what makes you think that?
he never said that
West isn't green
TIL he left the Green Party a few months ago. He was green until last fall.
Appeals to no one anymore
nader didn't put bush in the whitehouse
Definitely debatable. Nader had 97k votes in Florida, and Gore needed about 500.
There are a number of variables that arguably screwed Gore. The ballot format, the chads, the court, the completion from the left, etc. Many argue that removing any one of those variables could’ve likely tipped things for Gore.
Gore won florida
The point is that you’re more vulnerable to shenanigans with a tight margin.
let's put blame for Bush's presidency on bush
Going to back to the point of this thread. Someone like West is not going to win. Vote for him if you want, but if you’re in a state that is going to be tight, voting for him will make it easier for the far right candidate to get certified.
the Democrats and Republicans are both running far right candidates.
One of those candidates is literally running on overturning democratic elections, giving even more money and free rein to private industry, and having his family in appointmented positions.
The false equivalency stuff needs to end.
that's not what far right means, and there is no false equivalency being made
What is it to you? Increased authoritarianism and privatization are cornerstones of most popular definitions of right wing politics.
And SCOTUS handing it to him, of course.
Also Roger Stone and the rest of the Brooks Brothers Riot ratfuckers for delaying and disrupting the recount enough to give SCOTUS cover for their ridiculous decision to weigh in at all.
Spoiler Effect
Same song and dance from the 2 party machine. The way the political system is. This isnt democracy and I'd rather see trump elected purely so he can implode the system. And it'd be entirely the democrats own fault for falling into complete corruption and ineffectuality. Biden is bank rolling and arming a genocide, hes been nothing but a puppet president his entire term and the democratic party has become a corrupt oligarchy just the same as the republicans. This 2 party system is given power only by the willing consent and active participation of the american people. And I think its time that the american people said enough is enough and abolished the two existing political parties completely so that we can form a functional democracy instead of this corporate klepto clown show.
RFK isnt a perfect candidate but hes the best political candidate iv seen run for officeoin my lifetime.
Trump might implode the current system, but a functional democracy won't replace it. It would become a one party system in the style of Russia, trump has been clear enough about that.
Oh no if only Biden could adopt left wing policies and stop doing Genocide then he could get those voters!
No wait they are obliged to vote for God Emperor Biden! The Genocide must flow!!
Somone call 911 his brain is dead!
Or go with West who supports the genocide in Ukraine. Either way we get to have a genocider!
west does not support genocide anywhere
Neither does Biden
biden is literally shipping weapons and cash to a genocide.
And West refuses to support Ukraine's defense against a genocide.
he has never said that.
It's his view
https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/biden-war-criminal-cornel-west/
He almost never criticizes Putin's genocidal acts in Ukraine... just NATO... and repeats Putins talking points about giving up and giving Putin larger parts is their sovereign country( a "peacec treaty"). It's as though he has no clue that Putin would just attack again exactly like after Crimea.
in your own link, he calls putin a gangster.
he never said give up or rgive putin any part of ukraine. he called the invasion illegal. and the united states is IN nato, so the president (which he is running to be) would actually have influence over nato policy.
Biden has criticized Israel and called for a cease fire. Yet he is supporting genocide? while West would refuse to help Ukraine shoot back giving Putin free reign to take a much as they want and steal s many children as they can and this isn't supporting genocide? Why not criticize both Biden and West? They both deserve it.
He called for an end to the war and a treaty which can only mean compromising and giving part of Ukraine to Russia.
you don't see any way the war can end without giving part of ukraine to russia?
Not if it's a "compromise"... of course not. How could it end with a treaty without giving part of Ukraine(which Russia has legally annexed according to them) to Russia? They are no longer getting support to shoot back or even defend themselves so Russia has free reign to keep moving the line further and further... stealing and killing more and more children. Their goal is to erase the Ukrainian culture and to Russify the whole area.
Or De La Cruz or Jill Stein. You Blue MAGAs are always pretending to forget that there are 6 candidates in play right now
Look up Stein's views of Russia. She blames NATO for Russia's Invasion. Virtually never criticizes Putin. She says "why bother? " Stating that Ukraine used to belong to Russia. So she has no real issue with Russia erasing the Ukrainian identity and culture(genocide). She is a monster.
this is a mischaracterization
How?
she did say "why bother" but it wasn't in a statement about ukraine formerly belonging to russia. it was in the context of showing that everyone knows putin is a bad guy. she has never said she has no issue with russia erasing ukrainian identity, but she has called the invasion illegal. and she did say that nato's saber rattling provoked it, but she still condemns the invasion.
And Biden had criticized Israel's Gaza response.
but then continued to enable them
Just as Stein refuses to support Ukraine, enabling Putin.
she said the invasion is illegal.
Who cares what she says if what she would DO is not support Ukraine. Biden criticizes Israel but who cares if weapons are still supplied. Words are cheap.