this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
419 points (95.1% liked)

politics

18883 readers
4527 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DeadWorld@lemm.ee 89 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Ive been thinking more and more that the only way forward for the green party may just be to pic a few states and focus on local races. Get control over city councils and some mayoralships. Hell, a green caucus in state houses could actually do some good

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 hours ago

This is how the Tea Party and MAGA co-opted the Republicans, and it's the model progressives should use to move the needle in the Democratic party (and they have, with some success).

If progressives want to see change, progressives need to vote. In every election. General or primary.

[–] isaaclw@lemmy.world 13 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Sam Seder has been saying rhis for a decade at this point.

Its how you build a political movement.

[–] DeadWorld@lemm.ee 9 points 13 hours ago

Funny, I just heard him bring it up in a clip. Glad I'm not the oblyone thinking this, means I'm not completely crazy. Could a political party operate a community grocery "store" with campaign funds?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 136 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The fact that they're not doing that but just going straight for an unwinnable Presidential election tells you a lot.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 35 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

I remember in the late 90s the Green Party in my district was on a roll, culminating in the election of a member to the California State Assembly (one of the highest posts ever held by the Greens in the US). Then came Nader’s presidential bid and its perceived role in the election of Bush, which permanently crippled the legitimacy of the local party. They’re still doing great work with voter guides, legislative analysis, etc.; but they’ll never escape the shadow of Nader and Stein.

I think the only viable path for a third party now is to start a new one from scratch, and disavow presidential bids from the outset.

[–] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 44 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah, to be relevant they need to win some elections in large cities and state legislatures. That would be the base necessary to start winning congressional seats and then work up from there. Because the Jill Stein narcissism tour every four years is clearly doing more harm than good.

And it would be the best thing in the world for the Dems. They need cogent and real opposition and right now they’re just running against crazies - which is important, but doesn’t do much for establishing an agenda. A functional Green Party would actually help pull the Dems back more to the left.

[–] psvrh@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 hours ago

You can also vote the Democratic primaries, too.

That worked out, suprisingly well, for Sanders. Think about how much change you could affect voting for Sanderses at every level.

[–] shitescalates@midwest.social 19 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The best part of running for a state legislature or congressional position is that they could team with democrats to block the GOP, so unlike the presidential election you aren't voting against your interest for electing a third party.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

Those races are also FPTP so they do risk the same spoiler effect. Maybe it would do for a deep blue area?

I'm searching around and something like CA-12 was 90% Biden. Candidates could split that like five or six ways and still not have any danger of a Repub.

I don't think there are any state level positions that would accommodate that. Even Vermont is only D+16, so the third party is a larger risk.

[–] silence7 8 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

There are some parts of the US where they are not first-past-the-post.

  • Alaska - uses top 4 primary + ranked choice general
  • Maine - uses ranked choice voting
  • California & Washington - use a top-two primary

The Greens could effectively run in those places, as well as races where the Democrats aren't running a candidate.

But when I see them running for local office, they're basically running to be on the ballot, not mounting a serious effort to win.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

Says quite a bit that Greens aren't even doing much in California or Washington.

[–] DeadWorld@lemm.ee 10 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Seeing the disrepair the Republicans have left the south in, I wonder if there is room to do a grass roots campaign in more red areas with a focus of charity and community service? "We are here to help. No, we are not Dems" might work in Louisiana or Alabama

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 15 minutes ago

Probably, but that would require the Greens to be competent.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago

I actually think that would work. Campaign on: Charity, Community, and Clean Environment.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 14 points 23 hours ago

If they were a serious political party. But that would require you to believe that they are wildly incompetent and being supported for that incompetence. Rather than they're doing this intentionally. Not seriously running to win or improve anything. But being a divisive spectacle to destroy solidarity on the left.