253
The Democrats are campaigning as if the mid-terms will be free and fair elections. That is a mistake.
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2026
253 points (98.5% liked)
politics
27380 readers
4046 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why? To what end?
There is a political theory that says you should continue to participate in rigged or unfair elections, while explicitly calling them out as rigged, for the purpose of reaching people who are invested in electoralism and convincing them to engage in direct, mass action, such as strikes or revolution. That theory is called Marxism-Leninism. The democratic party are not Marxist-Leninists. They have no interest in getting people to abandon electoralism in favor of other means of resistance, they want the exact opposite of that.
There's another political theory that says you shouldn't focus your efforts on elections but should instead focus on building dual power through things like mutual aid networks. This theory is called Anarchism. The democratic party are not Anarchists. If you want to take that strategy, then you shouldn't even be looking to the democratic party, because it is a political party.
So why on earth would a party that is completely committed to electoralism as the only avenue of affecting change go around telling people the elections are rigged? It's nonsense. It goes against everything they believe in.
They are intrinsically tied to the system and they will continue to uphold the system until the day comes that they get dragged away to a torture dungeon in El Salvador. It's technically correct that they should change, but I don't see how it's remotely possible that they would change to anything like the extent necessary.
Are you sure on that? My understanding of Marxism is that they believe even fair elections are rigged, so to speak, because they are bourgeois election and they discourage all participation in any election that is a bourgeois election.
That does make sense, you're right. If the election is truly rigged though then aside from just accepting the doctored result, surely they have to call it out? Either you do or you don't. It's a binary decision, no?
By calling it out and stating exactly what they are doing, and how, you bring awareness to it and it shows the world that it is rigged. My hope is that then other countries will take economic action and populations across the world will begin to boycott thing i.e. The World Cup and USA made goods. This hits Trump in the only place he cares about. The economy.
The end goal being that once a stable and non-authoritarian government is in power they can amend the electoral system. That way the public and other nations are aware of why it needs changing and will hopefully support it.
It would essentially like Russia deposing Putin and installing a democratic party at the head of government, who then reform the electoral system.
That's just my view.
What do you believe the Democratic party should be doing then? You've made it clear what you think they will do. Of you were in their position how would you deal with the rigged election situation?
Common misconception, but yes,, I'm quite sure. Should We Participate in Bourgeois Parliaments? - V.I. Lenin
That's an analysis that I agree with. I don't think that Lenin's goal of revolution is necessarily applicable to modern day conditions, but I think there are other methods like strikes that could be encouraged by a radical party.
I think countries are more likely to take action based on the US's bizarre and imperialistic foreign policy, which directly affects them, than the prospect that elections might not happen.
The thing is that there's so much horrible shit that the administration is doing right now, in front of our eyes, that I don't really see much point in messaging about what they might do. At that point, if elections do happen, then everyone who said they wouldn't looks silly and discredited, and the administration gets to dismiss the opposition as doing paranoid fearmongering.
Well look, I fundamentally disagree with their approach, but if we're talking about messaging strategy then I think we have to stay within the realm with what's actually plausible. Since they're committed to an electoral approach, they can't cast doubts on the election because it could decrease turnout. They have to operate on the assumption that the elections will happen, and focus on criticizing things like ICE, while promising things that will materially improve people's lives, like Mamdani's approach.
Ah that was an interesting read. Thank you! I could also agree with some of what he says there.
As you also say though, strikes would be effective. More effective I believe if they can be organised properly. Trump has proven, as with Greenland amd his tariffs, that if the markets dive he will back down. That said, the aims would need to be clear. If the strikes try to force a change of government then it's a tool others could also use in future, probably to great effect.
That's true. If the US is compromised by i fair elections though, I think the governments of other western democracies will see his government as a dictatorship at that point. They would be in for more of the same, supposedly indefinitely if Trump's replacement was of the same mindset. I truly think that free elections is a red line for them. Just a theory though obviously.
Again, true. I get your point! The thing is, Trumps base and his supporters repeatedly claim he is doing what he is elected to do. The idea of democracy and freedom is so rooted in every part of American life that, if it were truly under threat, I think there would be a big wake up call.
It's one thing to say you are doing what you were elected to do. It's another entirely to say you are doing things based on an election won very transparently by illegal means. Trump is down in the polls. It's not like 2024. To pull of a big win he would have to engage in widespread manipulation that will be very difficult to conceal. If you can highlight just how rife it is, were it to happen, you can undermine his authority by pushing the message that he has no right to be in The White House (as long as you have clear proof). I think the Democrats need to be communicating exactly what Trump is doing to manipulate the elections and why he is doing it.
This is the hard part though. If you fight someone who isn't committed to free and fair elections in a free and fair election, without telling anyone that it's not a fre and fair election then you're setting yourself up to lose. I would argue keeping quiet and going along with it is exactly what Trump wants the Democrats to do.