this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
194 points (97.5% liked)

United States | News & Politics

1868 readers
627 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 86 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If she actually means it then she should be pushing for ranked choice voting. There’s no other way for politicians who aren’t part of the two major parties to win.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

There’s no other way for politicians who aren’t part of the two major parties to win.

That's totally fine. The short term reason for a new conservative party is to split the vote and insure the MAGA GOP cannot win. The medium/long term goal would be to replace the GOP as one of the 2 major political parties, just like when the GOP replaced the Whig Party. The way this would happen would be for a significant number of incumbant GOP senators and congressmen to announce they are moving to the new conservative party.

[–] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 53 points 3 weeks ago

"If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed ... and we will deserve it"

Lindsey Graham, 2016

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 34 points 3 weeks ago

They have one, they're called Democrats.

[–] niktemadur@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The results will not change until your toxic tail stops wagging the dog.
By which I mean your online and 24-hour hysterical anti-news infotainment excrement factory.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A second conservative party that disowns Traitorapist Trump would be a political earthquake. Conservatives would then be 100% certain that MAGA is making them lose.

[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yea that's what I was thinking. With the headline. Why don't the sensable adult conservatives just move over to a new party.

[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Trump has been hollowing out the Republican party and filling it with his minions for the last 8 years. If they lose this election badly enough, I wouldn't be surprised to see some intense infighting and a big push to clean out a lot of Trump's people. While it's not inconceivable that you could see an offshoot try to replace the Republicans, I doubt it would happen. I think it's more plausible that the die hard MAGA idiots that can't read the room will get purged in favor of those who can at least appear to be more traditional, establishment Republicans. The party changes (as they do over time) but it doesn't go away.

Of course, I think the most likely outcome is that any rise of more moderate Republicans isn't going to be sufficient to fully dislodge the MAGA loyalists and you'll just see a much deeper divide. Without pressure from Trump constantly crushing them down, the more moderate side of the party can probably be more effective in uniting against the extreme right wing, but not enough to fully take over.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

While it’s not inconceivable that you could see an offshoot try to replace the Republicans, I doubt it would happen.

It really depends heavily on timing. If Trumpism fades almost immediately after the election, the GOP can probably survive. If not, there is a good chance of it being replaced. All that would need to happen would be 2 critical steps. (1) A few big conservative big names announce the formation of a traditional conservative party that rejects Trumpism. (2) Over the next couple of years a wave of incumbant GOP senators and congressmen announce they are moving to the new party to break free of MAGA. That new party might still caucus with the GOP but would have a huge amount of leverage over it.

[–] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 15 points 3 weeks ago

I first read that headline as "is deranged."

Same sentiment but more precise.

[–] match@pawb.social 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

maybe we can agree to bisect both parties at once

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Ooo, four parties? I like that. BUT they all get new names and no one is auto-registered.

Name suggestions:

  • Conservative Traditionalist (god)
  • Libertarian (me, me, me)
  • Progressive (us)
  • Centrist (the rich)
[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Easier. Let's just do political parties by financial status. But swaps representations to be proportionate to populace of each status.

70% representatives poor party 29.9% middle class 0.1% unobtainable dragon hording wealth.

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We could always ban all political donations and ban superpacs. Money != politics

Lobbyists go to jail.

[–] SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yea I think that boulder would be easier to push than the mountain I just suggested lol

[–] distantsounds@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I’m just hoping that the collapse of the GOP ushers some leftward movement for once

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

That's not usually how it works. Democrats serve Wall Street and Silicon Valley first, but make concessions to Main Street as necessary to keep Republicans from taking over. The less of a threat Republicans are, the less incentive establishment Democrats have to put the needs of voters ahead of their sponsors.

[–] distantsounds@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

I’m 100% with you. I just have (delusional) hopes of a sea change, and that is never historically a safe bet

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Democrats serve Wall Street and Silicon Valley first

Then how come Biden raised corporate taxes? How come every Dem voted against Trump's gigantic tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy? Following the money cuts thru all the vague claims and bullshit and provides clarity.

The less of a threat Republicans are, the less incentive establishment Democrats have to put the needs of voters ahead of their sponsors.

That is the exact opposite of how politics work. The one and only thing that will result is a big shift to the left is for Dems to win over and over and over.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I already answered your first paragraph in the comment you replied to, but I'll embellish. Not every wealthy person involved in politics is in favor of insanely low taxes on corporations and the wealthy. Over reliance on austerity to balance the national budget is ultimately not in their best interest, and some of them are bright enough to realize it. Those are the concessions I mentioned.

The stark reality is that the situation for working Americans has gotten worse under both Republican and Democratic administrations. It's not just because Republicans have always managed to out maneuver Democrats in leveraging power. It has often been caused directly by Democratic legislative "successes". "The era of big government is over!" came from Bill Clinton as he shredded federal welfare programs. Obama reacted to the mortgage crisis by bailing out his Wall Street donors and hanging homeowners out to dry.

As for your second paragraph, it's as delusional and historically ignorant as anything I've heard out of MAGAts. Democratic victories are necessary for progress, but it's only the threat of immanent fascism that has historically driven Democrats to make improvements.

Biden went from being one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress to the most progressive Democratic President in fifty years. All it took was a massive fascist movement barking at his heels.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Democratic victories are necessary for progress, but it’s only the threat of immanent fascism that has historically driven Democrats to make improvements.

Not true. It is firm control of congress and the presidency. That is what created the New Deal and the Civil Rights era.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

“It was this administration which saved the system of private profit and free enterprise after it had been dragged to the brink of ruin.” President Roosevelt, on how his emergency actions in 1933 prevented a revolution and saved capitalism.

FDR was an elitist and a racist, but he understood that capitalism couldn't survive that moment by continuing a hard line against interests of the citizenry. The new deal was another compromise to protect the establishment from causing it's own destruction.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

The political pendulum always swings back and forth. We are way overdue for a big swing to the left.

[–] demizerone@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

America is damage. Get the money out of politics!

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

Or conservatives could just fuckin get with the times.

I have yet to see a single conservative from any country hold any values that don't just hurt everyone.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

I heard someone say once that if this was Europe the Republicans would actually be three different parties and the Democrats would probably be five.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Home run by Liz Cheney.

Ranked choice, alternative vote, single transferable vote, let's do it.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Damaged? Damaged???

[–] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works -3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The way Kamala Harris is running her campaign (towards the right), I would venture to say they're taking over the Democratic party. Kamala was really emphasizing her endorsement from the war criminal, Dick Cheney 🤮

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 18 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Conservatives took over the Democratic party over 30 years ago. Progressives have just recently started inching themselves back into relevance.

[–] Fuzzy_Red_Panda@lemm.ee 3 points 3 weeks ago

Came here to say this. Conservatives mostly have a party: the democrat party.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Conservatives took over the Democratic party over 30 years ago

The Democratic Party was much more conservative 30 years ago than today.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't know why people forget this. Bill Clinton was a straight-up conservative. Do people not remember that?

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Nobody remembers that because it is not remotely true. He raised taxes on the rich, legalized gays in the military, tried to implement universal healthcare, etc.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Literally none of that is true. What nonsense.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

Aren't you just restating my comment? Yes, progressives regaining relevancy results in a Democratic party that is left of one taken over by conservatives.

[–] SuperCub@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago