This is absolutely the case and why a viable third party really needs to make a push. Democrats nor Republicans have anyone's best interest in mind outside who gives them the biggest check and who they can manipulate to get votes. A third party might not be any better, but it would at the very least, make the Democrats and Republicans do something.
Says the guy who lives in the liberal state of Texas. Ohio's small-town and rural population is robust and just about as big as Texas's. This state is somehow more Republican than Texas these days and I'm surrounded by these assholes because our cities are small so it only takes them 15 minutes to drive their stupid truck to the saloon downtown by campus.I would assume it's of significant size right now, but I believe it will dwindle from here on out. Which is where I don't really agree with the whole, "The Empire is rising". They won seats, but not by the margins they thought they would & it seems currently clear from the last election cycle that the younger generation has no love for the Republican party. The Republican's base is the next to slowly pass away & the younger generation is easily more active in their protests, social media, & willingness to protect others. The Republicans run on a charade of promoting Christianity by law, hating LGTBQ+, taking shots at minorities through the border/crime, & occasionally attacking the younger generation in general like a few Conservative chuckle ****s saying, "Raise the voting age" b/c that will definitely play well when those younger voters meet the threshold the next time around.
All those things are the issues the 30 & under crowd don't vibe with & they will dictate this country with their votes for the next few decades. Republicans know this and are scared, but also stupid hence why they refuse to change strategy. Unfortunately, this should remain easy victories for the Democrats, but the younger generation doesn't forgive so easily, so the more they fiddle-fart around with policy, the more that up & coming generation might just stay home feeling neither side has their interest.
A third party is a terrible idea in our governmental system I've decided. We would need a parliament to make it work. Currently, the two major parties are so entrenched that the moment a third one steals votes and gives Republicans or Democrats the slightest advantage, they'll take it and run. Both parties have cooperated in writing laws to stunt the growth of any third party so all those laws would have to be struck down, new laws about guaranteed seats and votes would have to be added, etc etc. It's impossible and they've designed it that way. We'd have to wipe the government so it's not even a suggestion worth mentioning. Another example of libertarians being delusional.
Something needs to be done to challenge the status quo because the status quo right now is awful. Republicans want to go after absolutely asinine things and turn America into a fascist state run by idiots. Democrats don't want to do anything. While Democrats are better, they're by no means good since not attempting to build a half-assed fascist state is a pretty low bar to get over.
How would they tempt disgruntled Trumpies back into the fold? I'm not sure they could crawl any further up his backside. Perhaps adopt Qanon as an article of policy and nominate Boebert and MTG to high level cabinet posts?
Except that because of the way the whole thing is structured around money and power, no third party is ever going to be able to get enough influence without falling into the same traps that make Democrats and Republicans purchasable.
You need more than two parties to have anything like proper representation, but it can't be done under the current system. So, do you throw up your hands and say "well, that's just too bad"? Or do you start looking at the sorts of proportional representation systems that other countries have and how they might be adapted to suit America's particular needs and requirements?
You'd think so, but realistically what you probably get is a bunch of senior politicians who run politics from behind the scenes by placing younger proteges who will do as they're told. There's plenty of charismatic 30-60 year olds who will do as they're told for a couple of terms in order to get their foot in the door, after which they get to ride on the gravy train.
Realistically, this is the big one. America is pretty all in on the idea of capitalism, so if they wanted to reduce the instances of corruption then they could start by making it less profitable. Although of course the people making the rules are the ones who are profiting, so they'll never let it happen short of a civil war or similar major upheaval.
www.nbcnews.com
It's not clear from your argument, at least not to me, that it's a bad decision. South Carolina going fourth (well before Michigan) is not a huge move to 1st. This is even more the case with Georgia. I have no idea what all of the reasons are to have the states go in a particular order, but I assume there are reasons.This news is now a month old, but since I haven't had the time to post here in a while and I've not seen any mention of this rather important change yet, I'm going to share my thoughts. Biden has urged to make South Carolina the first state to vote in the Democratic primary in 2024, replacing Iowa.
White House sparks primary firestorm by pushing South Carolina for top spot
After it botched the 2020 caucuses, Iowa is set to lose its coveted first-in-the-nation status. But Biden's recommendation that South Carolina go first quickly led to internal divisions.
In short, this is a very bad decision. At best, it is an earnest but misguided attempt to increase turnout amongst voters of color in the Democratic primary, and at worst, it is a deliberate attempt by Biden to secure himself as the 2024 nominee if he has a primary challenger, and inhibit more progressive democratic candidate's chances of securing the nomination for the future. Going back to the 2020 democratic primaries, South Carolina was the fourth state to vote after Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. South Carolina was also the first state Biden was able to win, after Sanders winning the aforementioned three, and Biden's own campaign admitting that he would drop out of the race if he could not win South Carolina. Why did Biden do well in South Carolina? Aside from getting a much needed help from South Carolina's own Jim Clyburn, Biden, a moderate Democrat, was the clear favorite amongst South Carolina democrats. South Carolina democrats, who are vastly outnumbered by Republicans as the state has been solidly Republican post-Southern Strategy, tend to be more moderate on both social and economic issues and are majority African-American, as is the case for Democrats in most other southern states. Biden, despite his past history of racist remarks and the 1994 crime bill, is popular amongst African Americans, and was the most moderate major candidate in the race, so it's not any surprise that he won South Carolina. While Sanders' campaign did well with Hispanic/Latino voters and more urban constituencies of African Americans, progressive/populist campaigns like this simply don't do well among Black constituencies in the south. And that's not the fault of Biden or the Democratic party; I will concede that progressive candidates need to improve their messaging among this fairly sizable portion of the party. Biden's said goal was to increase minority participation in the primary, something I agree with as Iowa is significantly more white than the US average, but South Carolina is simply not representative of the Democratic party. The fact that Biden is insisting on South Carolina when Georgia next door is even more racially diverse and is a place where Democrats now actually have a chance, suggests that there are motives beyond just promoting minority turnout.
If we're going to insist on certain states voting much before others, something I believe to be a flaw in the electoral system to begin with, I think Michigan is the best bet. Why? First, it is, and likely will remain a swing state. Why would it make sense for a state that leans in a direction significantly to the opposite of the Democratic party like South Carolina and now Iowa as it has moved further red, to lead the Democratic primary? That being said, it also wouldn't be fair for a Democratic stronghold like California or New Jersey to lead the primary either; ideally, it should be a state that's at least somewhat contentious and is diverse, which Michigan is, with a sizable African American, Arab American, and growing Hispanic population. Michigan also contains three of the Democratic Party's core constituencies: voters of color as aforementioned, college-educated suburbanites, and blue-collar workers. The types of Democrat in Michigan tend to be diverse both in terms of race/ethnicity and ideology. In addition to Michigan- Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona would make good, representative contenders for being the first state to vote in the Democratic primary.
Because South Carolina isn't representative of the Democratic Party nationwide, and does not reflect the direction Democrats will have to take the party to succeed. Yes, there's no one single state that perfectly encapsulates the average Democratic voter. But why is Biden so adamant about pushing a state where the Democratic voters tend to be more conservative than average and a state where Democrats have no realistic chance of even coming close to flipping, at least not in the near future? It just seems like a myopic move to ensure Biden is the 2024 nominee at the expense of the party moving in a more progressive direction. And I don't think it's just Biden who has a stake in making SC the first state to vote; Jim Clyburn, the second most powerful house Democrat is a SC representative, and Jaime Harrison, the current DNC chair is from South Carolina; he ran for senate against Lindsey Graham in 2020 and even set fundraising records, despite losing handily to Graham. At worst, it is a nakedly obvious repayment for Clyburn's endorsement that will shift the party even further away from the progressive left by giving more conservative candidates momentum right out of the gate. I agree with you that a system in which a select few states vote much earlier than most others is flawed, but it's self-evident that the outcomes of the first state's primary has a monumental impact on future primaries and candidates' perceptions of winning.
So that the party remains close to swing voters? Seems like an easy question to answer.
I have no doubt about all of this, but it seems a little tangential to the point about whether SC should be 1st or 4th.
It's a much larger change in the order of the states. I don't know what went into the order, but presumably something went into it.
www.independent.co.uk
He said in the article he wouldn't run as a vanity candidate. He's lying. He's running as a vanity candidate and he's doing it specifically to split the vote and screw Trump. Trump as disrespected him on multiple occasions and Bolton knows exactly how stressful and miserable the job of President is. He doesn't want it but he also doesn't want Trump to have it.
I think he'll dunk on her alright, but not nearly as much as for
