We hear this literally every election
Idk, Trump has just seemed...different, he seems to rally a user base that just didn't seem to exist before. It's scary to me how he can drum up the support he has.
All I saw were legions of already existing fascists, nationalists, and other bigots feeling like society was "finally" on "their" side. Growing up in rural America, I didn't feel like Trump rallied a userbase that didn't exist before, but rather he rallied them in the way they've been wanting to get rallied since they lost Jim Crow laws.
About 30% of the United States wishes the Civil War ended differently and always has...
I disagree, Trump attracts the same group as Ross Perot did, and as Reagan did, and despite different policies I think in the same way Huey Long did. Trump's core proposition was attacking the "deep state" something that has long drawn the ire of many Americans(whether it exists or not).
Worked for Perot… why couldn’t it work again? No labels is well-funded and poised to be a spoiler
Because they changed the rules specifically as a result of Perot
Kanye had ballot access in almost every state in 2020. The only rule change is around someone who declared to be in a partisan primary. No Labels would not run anyone like that
Colorado, Minnesota, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Utah, Idaho, Iowa, Tennessee, Vermont and Mississippi
12 states is not MOST states. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanye_West_2020_presidential_campaign
Because they don’t want people thinking the system can ever change
This possibility is exactly why we need a Democrat who isn’t just a “not Trump” candidate.
Yeah but we're not going to get a Democrat who isn't the sitting President as the nominee. There's no options, Biden is President and Biden is thr democratic nominee. I'd like someone better, but he's the guy thathas to beat Trump. The beat news is that he did it before, but I hope he has more tools in his bag besides "not Trump."
Right but like, who determined this? Oh thats right, unelected party officials who feel that a sitting president is "entitled" to run again.
Plus, this ignores that at the time, some of the people pushing for Biden in 2020 even said that he was supposed to "right the ship" so that "someone younger" could take the reigns in 4 years. It was literally one of the counterpoints to those of us who opposed his nomination then for this exact reasoning, that once in office he'd feel entitled to running for re-election because that's what a sitting president does.
It's the same sort of dynastic political thinking that you see in local party politics where their kids who went to school for politics are basically groomed by the party establishment to replace them.
In practice it doesn't work that way. There's as much chance a Green elevation is going to work against Trump. People in Republican states aren't going to vote for Biden, but they might be persuaded to vote for Green candidates over Earth conservation issues. Farmers and hunters can usually see green problems despite not being able to see progressive issues.
Some of the greatest conservationists in the world have come from hunting groups that have become disillusioned by the loss of game to aggressive corporations and destructive hunting practices. Similarly farmers see the breakdown of the ecosystem.
None of this needs to involve liberal and Democrat viewpoints.
Biden identifies himself as being neutral, if another candidate who also identifies himself as neutral shows up, he'll take votes from Biden.
No one who would vote on a threat to world peace like Trump would vote on a "neutral" candidate, they will only vote on other white supremacist candidates.
American politics is also very simplistic, you just say "I _____ abortion" and people say Yes/No on the spot, they don't care about anything else.
I fucking hate single issue voters. I'm pro-gun but would never even consided voting for a republikkkan (aka: fascist). They'll take away your guns as soon as they steal the country. Every "freedom" that republicans claim to support, they only support them for fascists, and even then, they would get purged as soon as their usefulness is over.
gotta agree with you on that. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: trump and his ilk are the single greatest argument for maintaining the 2a.
Per OP, the concern is more about a No Labels-funded candidate. It’s Perot all over again. Clinton won by 6%. Perot got 20%
In other words… in practice, it worked that way in recent history
Generally Libertarian party voters have more overlap with Republicans, and Green party voters have more overlap with Democrats. Both run in most elections.
This is common in First Past the Post voting structures. CGP Gray does a great video to explain this.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/s7tWHJfhiyo
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Good bot
Isn't it interesting that this part never factors into the discussion? Its always brought up that third party candidates spoil votes for the more popular candidate, but only so far as "and that's why you need to vote BLUE"
The Democratic establishment doesn't want to fix this issue. They want to be able to coerce people into voting for them out of fear of the ever more openly fascist GOP.
Spoiler candidates is a reality because of fptp.
I agree that this is why major parties oppose ranked choice. The problem is that until we find a way to get ranked choice, they are right.
Russia is helping 3rd party candidates in order to sway voter away from one of the major parties to influence elections.
I hate to say this, but they went all out for Bernie. I volunteered a ton of my time for the guy, especially in 2016, but it’s clear that Russia wants spoilers.
But the real threat in ‘24 is a Perot-style candidate. No Labels wont disclose their donors. Their court washed-up dems at their events, while getting money from dark money (probably republicans).
I wanted to vote for “Deez nutz” in 2016. They wouldn’t put him on the ticket, because he was underage. We all know Hillary wouldn’t debate “Deez Nutz.”
Liberal democracy is flawed, more news at 11.
The 1700s framework unable to anticipate modern issues turned oligarchic mess that is the US political system isn't liberal democracy and it's way overdue for a total overhaul.
Of course, one of the things that the 1700s ruling elite wasn't able to anticipate is that there would be several times more states and that gerrymandering and other fuckery would lead to a perpetual near-stalemate, making their amendment process literally impossible to enact.
One day the US will have ranked choice voting and this will still being a threat to vote for the two major parties every election
that's why we won't have ranked choice voting. Right now, the status quo benefits both the major parties.
That’s why they exist!
Everyone is all over the comments saying it’s not gonna happen…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election
Perot got 19% of the vote. Clinton won by 6.5%. Ross Perot is the reason Clinton won
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
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